The Sun. — London, England, 1857-06-19 00:00:00

rnE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 19 . 1857 statement which he made of the charges,which were pro p° <ed by the Government to be defrayed by that amount —Church cess, 60,0001 ; augmentation of poor livings, 46,500/ ; building and repairing churches, 20,0001. ; glebe-honses, 10,000/. ; making in ail 136,500/. These were the measures which the Go vernment of Lord Grey thought necessary to introduce for the purpose of saving the Church of Ireland from the imminent danger by which it was at that time threatened. They have, I am happy to say, been greatly successful, and have contributed—it will be a source of lasting satisfaction to me to think that I have been in the slightest degree instrumental in contributing—to the permanency and security of the Established Church in Ireland. My noblefriend asks me what is the distinction which I draw between church cess and ministers' money, and he rightly says that he concludes the subject was not omitted to be taken into consideration by Lord Grey's Government. The difference between church cess and ministers' money was not only seen and admit teal by Lord Grey's Government but by every Govern ment since Lord Grey's, and there has been no Govern ment until the present which has conceded without com pensation the abolition of this tax. The distinction be tween church cess and ministers' money is broad and clear. Church cess was a voluntary assessment, uncer tain in amount, dependent on the will of the vestry, whe ther they would choose to 1-vy it or not, and to what amount they would choose to levy it, and levied exclu sively by Protestants, while it tell mainly on Roman Catholics, and consequently excited great ill-will and ill feeling. But ministers' money was a tax 200 years old, of a definite amount fixed upon certain property and just as much .attaching to the individual house as any chief rent payable by any one of your lordships. (Hear, hear.) The property was pur chased subject to a definite charge, and I say I partake in the indignation with which the noble and learned lord the Chief Justice expressed his condemnation in this house a few days ago of that species of religious consci entiousness which objects to any pecuniary charge. (Cheers.) Supposing I bought a house liable to the pay ment of 501. a-year for the support of a Jewish syna gogue. I should like to know what would he said of me if, from conscientious motives, I refused to pay money for such a purpose. (Hear.) A wise man would call me a fool, and an honest man would call me a rogue, and the law would say that, being liable, I must put my conscientious scruples in my pocket and take my money out of my pocket, and pay the amount. (Cheers.) This charge does not fall exclusively on Protestants or on Roman Catholics, but on the occupiers of certain houses, the owners of which have bought those houses subject to the tax, and therefore liable to pay it. I think I have sufficiently answered my noble friend as to the distinction between church cess, uncertain in amount and voluntary in assessment, and ministers' money, a fixed charge on property which the purchasers con tracted to pay at the time of the purchase. (Hear) I know my argument will be lightly esteemed by my noble friend, and I will therefore quote authority not of a very remote date as to the religious objections to the payment of this tax. In 1854 it was said— " This tax had nothing to do with :any religious question. It was a tax upon property, and it would be perfectly prepos terous to make the rate upon a house dependent upon the religion of its owner. The tax was one upon property, to which every man kn ow h e was liable when he purchased it, and had really nothing whatever to do with religious feeling." That was the opinion in 1854 of a colleague of my noble friend—a colleague then and a colleague now—the pre sent First Lord of the Treasury. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, I am not prepared to deny that up to 1854 there were very plausible objections at all events to be raised to the incidence of this tax. The houses which were liable were so liable according to the original valuation of the time of Charles 11. There had been great change in the value, and some houses which were valuable at that time bad become quite valueless since. Furthermore, a large pro portion was leitied on proprietors of very small houses. And here I think my noble friend hardly did the clergy justice when he said that, owing to the difficulty of col lection, they abstained from collecting it ; he might have given the clergy credit for some good feeling in refraic ing from collecting the tax from their poorer parishioners, and not put it merely on the ground of the difficulty and expense. There were three objections urged against the tax. The first was the religious objection. T.ie religious objection, although put forward in the committee of 1848, was, as I have shown, repudiated by the Govern ment in 1854. The second was the inequality of the rate, owing to the change in the value of property. The third was the large proportion of the tax which, numeri cally speaking, fell upon the poorest class of houses. I am not now going to defend the Act of 1854, but I am about to draw the attention of your lordships to what the Act of 1854 did towards the removal of those most serious and valid objections. The Act of 1844, in the first place, relieved from the payment of ministers' money all houses under the annual value of 101., analogous to the power of magistrates to relieve occupiers of very small houses from the payment of poor-rates. The second amendment of the law made by the act of 1854 was pro viding that a new regulation should take place, and that the percentage chargeable should be levied afterwards, according to the old valuation in the time of Charles 11. Whet was the result of the alteration of the law! Where, so there were liable to the tax beforelBs4, 51,019 howes, there were exempted by operation of the aot, 30,873 ; and there remain liable, 20,146 ; and of these 20,146 houses (I beg your lordships to bear this in mind, as I shall have to advert to it hereafter) 15,517, or just three fourths of the whole, are in the city of Dublin. In Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Drogheda, Clonmel, Kilkenny, and Kinsale, there are only 4,629 houses liable to the payment of the tax. The nominal amount of the tax be fore -the act was something more than 15,0001. a-year, and by a provision in the act, in consideration of the greater security in the receipt, the clery were to receive 75 per cent, of the nominal income. The amount was to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissions, and the Ec cl-stastical Commissioners were to be paid by the eorpo rations of the different towns, upon whom, whether wisely or not, the act of 1854 threw tho liability of col lecting the tax. But while the act of 1854 removed the -objectionable features of the tax it maintained the prin ciple that the property was still to be liable, and that the clergy should still be entitled to receive the income out of that property. I find Sir J. Young speaking at that time in the following terms. He was asked why for so long a period, from 1833 to 1854, no remedy had been applied to that which was confessedly a grievance in the collection of ministers' money, and he said— " The reason why no remedy had been applied was this, that though the amount was small, the principle of the invio lability of property was concerned, for it was impossible to take it away withoct violating property and spreading consi demblo alarm among persons attached to the Church. If this property were taken away it would be asked what would recaaiu ;Cheers.) In conformity with the principle adopted by all preceding Governments, the noble earl who was at tee head of the Government in 1854 not only refused to do away with the liability of occupiers of property to pay charges to which they were justly liable, but he went a step beyond his predecessors, and confirmed by Parlia mentary sanction the right of the clergy on the one hand, and the liability of the taxoayers on the other. (Cheers.) Teat was so recent as 1854, and yet in 1857 the mem bers of the same Government which in 1854 made the arrangements for greater security come down upon grounds of expediency, and expediency alone, and expe diency of the lowest description—namely, a tame and passive submission to the successful opposition of those whose duty it was to levy the tax, and ask your lords hips to take away that property which in 1854 they themselves declared to be inviolable. (Cheers.) I say, therefore, that for my own part I should be quite pre pared to rest this case upon the ground of principle— upon the same ground which induced successive Govern ments to abstain from so manifestly oonvenient a course as is now proposed. But lam prepared to meet it also on the ground of expediency, however plausible the en pechency of abandoning this charge may at first sight appear. lam prepared to deny the sufficiency of the fund on which it is proposed to throw. this additional charge. It is said to be expedient to alter the law, but my noble friend has not stated the grounds on which he thinks it expedient to do.so. I will take the question as to the sufficiency of the fund on which my noble friend proposer to throw this additional charge of 12,0001. I beg, however, in passing, not to be supposed to admit that, even if the fund were eufficient to meet the pro posed charge, the principle on which the bill is founded is such as to be deserving of your lordships' sanction. I am prepared to show that the fund is not now and never can be adequate to meet a'l the legitimate purposes to which it is appiicable. I have stated, and I may here be permitted to repeat, that the charges, as estimated by Earl Grey, were 60,0001. a-year for church-cess, 46,50001. a-year for the augmentation of small livings, 20,0001. a-year for the building and repair of churches, and 10,000/. a-year for the building and repair of glebe houses, making in the whole 136,5001, To meet this charge Earl Grey supposed there would be 150,0001. a year in the hands of the commissioners, but instead of that the fund now at the disposal of the commissioners amounts to no more than between 99,000/. and 100,0001. exclusive of the sum they may now receive for ministers' money. If, therefore, as I have stated, . the income at the disposal of the commissioners is under 100 0001. a year, let me refer to the charges which are actually im posed, exclusive of ministers' money. The actual revenue, exclusive of ministers' money, amounts to 99,3761, and the charges imposed by the act upon that fund amount to 79,5261., leaving, therefore, a surplus of 19,8501. Let me remind your lordships of the purposes to which, ac cording to Earl Grey, the surplus was to be devoted. For building new churches and chapels, for which the estimate was taken by Earl Grey at 20,0001. a-year, the sum put down for the present year is 9,464/. The house would permit hies to state under what circum stances advances upon this head were made. They were made only upon the condition that the parties applying for aid advanced onesfifth towards the expense of erect ing the church in respect of which application was made, There was also an estimate for aiding the building of glebe houses. To this, however, not one farthing had yet been contributed. Towards the augmentation of poor livings an estimated sum of 40.0001. was to be set apart. Of the average amcnnt actually contributed to this purpose he could not speak with certaintp s es:t was either 2,1301. or 4,1001. ; but taking it at the maximum it was but too clear that the commissioners had felt themselves cramped for means. In *fact, they had only given aid where the income of the living was under 1001., and even to that extent they had not been able to meet the demands upon them. And yet the Govern ment proposed to throw a further charge upon the already overburdened fund. That it was overburdened was stated by their own Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Brady). Appended to the report which had been made to the Lard Lieutenant of Ireland was the name Marere Brady, Chancellor of Ireland. That report set forth th© difficulties with which the commissioners had had to con tend, and the dissalisfaction which had been occasioned by their refusing, as they were obliged to do, and on many occasions, and they stated that these dif f iculties would be increased during the present year. And yet in the face of this report, bearing the signature of one of the highest of their own officials in Ireland, the Govern ment now told the house that the funds in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners were sufficient, and that it was expedient to abolish the ministers' money tax. As a question of amount he denied the expediency of the present government, or of any government, leading the people of Ireland to believe that a resistance to the law of the land was the first and easiest step to the parlia mentary abrogation of that Jaw. But even the plea of resistance to the levy of the tax was a miserable one. Four-fifths of that tax were levied in Dublin alone, and in that city no resistance had been offered. (Hear.) It was to the resistance of Cork and of other towns, raising not more than 3,0001 out of 12,000/., that the government bad succumbed. His noble friend had avoided this diffi culty by passing adroitly over the case of Dublin, but he trusted that their lordships would not let the fact pass from their minds. The bill was, in fact, an admis sion on the part of the Government of their inability to maintain the law. There was no excuse whatever for such a state of things. Their own act of 1854 contained provisions for enforcing the law, and for declaring the sums due from the corporations appointed to levy the - tax Crown debts. Had the proper prscess been followed the amounts due might have been obtained as Crown debts. But an opposition was made, not by the parties paying the tax, but by those appointed to collect it— and the corporations went before the Lord-Lieutenant for the purpose of declaring that they would no longer levy the ministers' money. Was ever such a thing known before as a public body coming before the representative of a Government, and telling him of their deliberate inten tion no longer to obey the law? Or, if such a proposition ever was made, was there an instance until the present of a ministry who did not reject it with disdain, and pro ceed to enforce that law which it was their bounden duty t ) uphold ? (Hear.) No member of their lordships' house could hesitate a moment in answering such a ques tion. For these reasons, therefore, he objected to this bill. He objected to it on principl e , inasmuch as it took from the church property which belonged to it by right of property, as sacred as those by which any member of that house held his patrimony, and inasmuch as it pro posed to apply that property for the mere benefit of the tax-payer, without one single pretence either of abuse or injustice. He objected likewise to it on the ground of expediency, for it would cause a deficiency, to supply which no present means existed, and because it gave a premium to a refusal to obey the law. While, therefore, he would willingly do all to put an end to even the most miserable fragment of agitation, he felt bound to pro pose that this bill be read a second time that day six months. With regard to the clergy, he would add that whether the bill passed or did not pass, their position iedividually would he precisely the same. If the bill passed they would receive their incomes from the Eccle siastical Commissioners, but they would receive them at the expense of other great objects which were provided for in the Act of 1834, and which must be abandoned if their I ,, rdships consented to deprive the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of a portion of their funds, as it was pro- Fond to do by this bill. The Earl of HARROWBY entreated their lordships to consider the proposal of the Government calmly and deliberately ; and unless they were prepared with some better proposal for effecting the object, let them not run the risk of a dangerous collision with the Irish popula tion, which would arise from compelling the Roman Catholic corporations to levy this impost. The Bishop of KIL MORE said he could not but view this bill as one which was calculated to do the greatest injury to the Irish branch of the Established Church— (opposition cheers)—and he confidently affirmed that that was the universal opinion of the Protestant clergy in Ireland with rare exceptions, if indeed there were any exception. He opposed the bill because it virtually repealed several clauses of the Church Temporalities Act which took away the funds which had been set apart as an equivalent for the church cess on its st'ooli tion. Instead of promoting peace and good will, it would have the very contrary effect, as it would be re gal ded by one party as a tiiumpb,..and by the other as a grievous wrong. The Earl of CORK said he was as anxious as any person to maintain the inviolability of church property, but instead of attacking that inviolability this bill would but strengthen and secure it ; it would do away with one of those small grievances which tended so much to produce ill feeling, and he trusted their lordships would not reject the bill, and by so doing perpetuate a system which was productive of a great amount of bitterness. Viscount DUNGANNON said if this measure passed, a precedent would be established which would endanger the foundation of property of every description. He would give the bill his strongest and most decided oppo sition. The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the bill. The Earl of DON OUGHMORE said the measure was one which if passed must end in ultimate spoilation. His lordship entered into a variety of statistics bearing upon the point. Lord TALBOT DE MALAHIDE gave his assent to the measure. The Earl of ELLEN - BOROUGH said, that whether their lordships accepted or rejected the bill, it was clear that things could hardly be allowed to remain in their present position. The duty of Government was to esta blish good feeling and tranquillity ; and that being his opinion, he must naturally desire that no further attempt should be made to collect this tax. He feared that the ecclesiastical commissioners would not have funds to supply the place of the tax they were about to repeal, but he was prepared to offer a suggestion to the Govern ment, which he believed would create a complete equi valent. At present there was a separate establishment for the church temporalities, and his suggestion was that the business should be transferred to the Board of Works, by which means about 9,0001. a year might be saved. He found that the expense of the church temporalities was 10 per cent., a very large amount, tut all this might be saved by tvansferring the business to the Board of Works, to which the clerical members of the commission might go also whenever their interests were under dis cussion. If her Majesty's Government did not adopt this suggestion, he should propose a clause in committee. In the meantime, he thought it desirable that their lord ships should concede the second reading of the bill. Lord BERN ERS opposed the bill. The Duke of NEWCASTLE would have been con tented to give a silent vote on the question but that he feared, whatever decision they might come to, that re sults would follow by no means satisfactory to the house. The noble earl opposite bad complained that the Govern ment proposed this bill wh en t h ere was li tt l e or no ex citement on the subject. Surely he did not mean to say that they were to wait for agitation to concede a measure of justice. On the contrary, it was the duty of statesmen to foresee when concessio n was inevitable, and to con cede before agitation had made its a pp earance . Th e no bl e earl objected to the principle of allowing people to make religious scruple the ground of resistanc to a pecu niary impost. Agreed ; but practically this religious element would always enter into these matters, and must be attended to. He now Caine to a point which he hoped some member of the Government would be able to clear up. It bad been asserted i n t h e course o f t h at debate that the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland gave a sort of license to the corporations to resist this tax, and, as he was about to vote for the second reading, he felt bound to protest against such a course on the part of the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland He hop e d, h owever, that this matter would be satisfactorily explained by his noble friend who was about to reply. H e as k e d w h at situat i on would the Government be in should th e i r l or d sh i ps un fortunately reject this bill. What would the position of the Government of Ireland be, if ultimately obliged to enforce the law, after having giv en li cecse for its resist ance T He hoped that his noble f rien d would clear up the point, and he thought his noble friend should be grateful to him for calling his attention to it. He had one feel ing of regret in voting for the bill, an d t h at wag, that in doing so he should withdraw from th e ecc l es i as ti ca l commissioners funds which could be so usefully em ployed, but as he believed that the removal of ministers' money would tend to tranquillise the people of Ireland, he should give his assent to the second reading. Earl GRANVILLE said that in proposing the second reading of the bill he had ventured an appeal to the noble earl opposite for some explanation on four points. He had asked the noble earl whether, having, when himself in office, prepared a plan for the settlement of this ques tion, he would have any objection to state the leading features of that plan to the house. To that appeal the ' noble earl had not deigned to make the slightest reply. Next he bad ventured to ake the noble earl whether he could suggest any plan to get them out of the acknow ledged difficulty, and on that point the noble earl had been silent also. He had then asked the noble earl to point out the distinction between vestry teas and minis ters' money, and had been equally unfortunate in obtain ing information. With respect to what had fallen from the noble duke, he denied that any delay had taken place in taking proceedings in Ireland ; fn foot, they were pushed forward w ith t h e greates t v i gou r until a parlia mentary declaration was made that the subject would be taken into consideration by the legislature. The Earl of DERBY rose to explain that when the vestry cess question was settled it was found that by long custom a small portion of it went to certain curates in Dublin. To meet this case the 73d clause of the act of 1833 passed. Earl GRANVILLE said that the explanation of the noble earl did not go to the principle of that 73d clause. The Earl of DERBY referred the noble earl upon that subject to the noble lord the Chief Justice, who was then Attorney-General, and drew up the bill. (Laughter.) Lord CAMPBELL said that it was his belief that in drawing up that bill ministers' money was forgotten. The noble earl (Derby) then threw over ten bishoprics and chnrch cess ; he weuld now urge him to throw over the ministers' money, and so complete the measure of justice commenced in 1833. (Cheers.) The house divided-- For the second reading—Present 65 Proxies 36 —lOl Against—Present Pi oxies - 96 Majority The bill was then read a second time. POLICE BILL. This bill was read a second time. Title house adjourned at ten minutes to 11. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPICAKIift took the chair at a quarter before 4. THIRD READINGS. Cardigan Markets and Improvements ; Ely Valley R ail way ; Fownhope and Holme Lacy Bridge'; Lowe st , :eft Water, Gas, & M ar k e t ; M ane fi e ld & Worksop Road; S aropshire Union R a il ways an d C an al, London and Id orth-Westeru Railway ; Wearmouth Bridge, Ferries, and Approaches; Wimbledon and Dorking Railway. The following bills were considered and ordered to lie on the table :—Blyth and Tyne Railway; Dartmouth iind Torbay Railway ; Stockton New Gas and Stockton Gas Consumers' Companies ; Ilrkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented in favour of an alteration of the Superannuation Fund ; in favour of the abolition of Church-rates ; and also in favour of Mr. ileadlam's Medical Bill. to the mile, be discontinued ; that the survey of Scotland he carried on, as it has been *in Ireland, the northern portion of Eeeland, and a large part ion of Scotland, on a scale of 6,n, to the toile, and that it be enerav,rl that scale ; and that a map of Scotland, on a scale of lin. to the mile, be also reduced from the 6ae. map for en graving and publication. The hon. gentleman stated ho was an Irishman, and he claimed justice for Ireland in the matter of that great outlay. He then entered into a long statement of facts and figures with a view, as he said, of showing that Scotch landowners did not under stand their own interests. (Laughter.) The ordnance map itself would be far too large to be of any practical service, and the reduced map would be quite useless, be cause it could not be depended upon. The bin. map, however, was so perfect, that Sir John M'Neill, who was an eminent engineer, bad stated to him only two days previou ly that he had laid out several hundred miles of railways by that map alone. In fact, it was so full that engineers now never "chained out" or measured the land they required to take. They depended upon the Ordnance map alone, which in many cases was more ac curate than the large maps made by local surveyors. Every engineer examined before the committee Lad ad mitted that the 6in, map was sufficient for Parliamentary purposes, with relation to tending orders. As for the "geological" reasons that had been given for the 25,n. survey, Sir R. Murchison had altogether repudiated them. If they de-sir dto connect a transfer with a map they must have an index, and it would be impossible to index a 25 inch map. It was both too large and too small. It was a map they could not use for registration. It was impossible to have a standard map for the regis tration of property. It was equally impo,sible to franc a map that was perfect for all purposes. Would they in cur an enormous expense merely to give the Scotch gen tlemen plans of their estates ? He prayed the house to intercept this monstrous survey. He had taken much pains to make himself master of the subject, and he had given the house his conclestons. He should move that the wbole of the survey estimate should be struck out (36,0001.), in order to drive the Government into making a supplemental ett"mate. Lord DUNCAN entered into a history of the changes that had tek-n place in the Ordnance survey, defended the 25-inch survey as best adapted for the purpo-es of Scotland, as little, if at ail, more expensive than if done on the smaller scale, and as capable of being reduced to a smaller scale, while the smaller scale could not be raised. So much was this the case that a large portion of England bad been obliged to be re-surveyed, as it was first began on too small a scare. As a further reason for retaining the present arrangement, he added that a great portion of the cultivated districts in Scotland was al ready finished, and that considerable loss bad been sus tained by the frequent changes that had taken place in the matter. He hoped therefore, the house would now settle the question once for all. Sir W. JOLLIFFE had nothing to say against the scale, but he complained of the Government proceeding with the survey of the Highlands, while London and the populous districts of England were left uneurveyed„ Lord GIFFORD said, after a careful study of this question, he had come to the conclusion that the 25-inch kale was a great mistake, and ought to be discontinued. It was:of no use to any one but the Scotch landowners, and if they wanted it tbeyought to pay for it themselves. Mr. HENLEY ridiculed the modesty of the Scotch members, who, finding that the Irish had got a map on a scale six times as large as that of England, insisted teat Scotland should be only four times as large as that of Ireland. Ho had always understood that this 25- inch scale was a very expensive one, and he was not con vinced by the arguments which Lord Dune in had put forward. As the motion before the house was not to refuse the vote, but to give time for reconsideration, he would support it. Lord ELCHO at some length entered into a history of the whole question. On the merits of the case he argued that the opponents of the meaeure were incon sistent, and fell into a fallacy in speaking of the 25 inch scale as a monstrous map. The truth was that when you went beyond a one-inch scale it ceased to be a map, and became a plan. Now, a six-inch scale was too large for a map and too small for a plan. The difference between the six and 25-incb scale was that of the difference be tween Brown Bess and the Enfield rifle. Mr, LOCKE thought the 25-inch scale was not ob jectionable in itself, but he protested aga.in,t the engrav ing and publication of any map on a larger scale than one inch. If any higher scale were adopted it ought to be at the expense of the Scotch landlords, for whose benefit alone it could be intended. The LORD ADVOCATE said if it were desirable to have a proper national survey, no doubt they should have the best that could be procured. He hoped tee house would not adept the motion of toe hon. hart , and thus encourage the constant changes in surveys, pulling down one year wha , they had bunt up in previous years. He trusted the house woul I affirm the decision to which the Parliament had come. The que-tion was not an abstract one of eceles, but whether they would go on with the Scotch surrey. (Hear, hear.) He had heard the most extraordinary statements made with regard to the expenses, and it had been said that it would cost three, four, or five million-, whereas this would cost less than the Irish survey. The Irish survey cost 1,205,0001., whereas this would cost less than a million. No doubt the one-inch scale was the right one for a map, but this Scotch survey was not fur a map, and by the auastatic process a reduction could be effected to any extent, and that was the plan which was adopted in France, whereas the lion. baronet had incorrectly stated that the maps were not published. The Tithe and Enclosure C autnissloners had repor ed that the one-inch seals was perfect y useless for their purposes. The hon. baronet had stated that this scale was recom mended by the Scotch landed proprietors for their own purposes, but he forgot that on the committee which re commended the Irish scale there were fourteen Irish ' members, and so the Irish scale began. (Laughter.) The best answer he c mid give to those who thought a six inch scale so excellent would be to refer to the immense advantages that the twenty-five-inch survey had been to Ireland. The rate of surveying had not been greater in Scotland than in England ; in fact, while 8,000 and some odd miles had been surveyed in Scotland, 9,000 odd miles had been surveyed in England. The whole staff was at present in operation, and it would throw every thing into confusion to stop the survey just at this time time for the sake of a very doubtful saving of 50,0001. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by quoting the testimony of Jeremy Bentham as to the importance of having a good national map. Capt. BOLDER() addressed a few words to the house in favour of the six-inch scale, and referred to the great service the Ordnance maps had rendered to engineersand railway promoters during the season of the mania. Mr, ELLICE said that the real question was whether I Scotland was to have a map or an estate survey. The sur vey upon the scale of 25 inches to the mile was altogether useless ; and he knew in one county (viz , Roy-shire) an hon. friend of his who represented the county had pur chased a map, the only one that ever had been pur chased, and bad since stowed it away in a cellar, be cause from its size it was fleetest?. The hon. member alluded in particular to the island of Harris, and other parts in the Highlands which were perfectly barren, and as there were already 624,0001. not disposed of, he hoped the house would come to such a resolution as would prevent the further extravagant expenditure of the public money for so useless a purpose. I Lord . PALMERSTON said that the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Mallow (Sir D, Norreys) would place the Government in a greater difficulty than it had ever been in before. It had been said that they were to stop all the work now in progress, and carry out the wishes of the house. But he would defy any govern ment, or any man, to discover from that debate .hat the opinion of the house was. Oae hon. gentleman was for a 25-inch survey, another for a 6.inch, and another for a 2-inch survey and a 1-inch inv. He requested lion members to discharge from their minds most of the great exaggerations they had heard respecting the cost of the survey. For himself he thought it a pity and a great waste of public money that the map of E, gland had been upon so small a scale. He thought it should have been a 2-inch map at least. He had seen the plans of the 6 inch survey, and he considered that for places where there were buildi gs to be defined they were far too small to he satisfactory. With regard to publishing the 25 inch met), that was not intended, but it was well known that by the aid of science copies could be supplied without beirg engraved at a very moderate expense. It was a mistake to suppose that the island of Harris bad beer surveyed on the 25. inch scale ; thas was not so. The 6 inch scale had been adopted ; but though fir the other parts of Scotland the larger scale bad been used, that was no more than had been done in Ireland, where there wee quite as much land as in the Highlands. He hoped that a few years more would complete the survey, and that in the meantime the house would not interfere with the present arrangement. (Hear, hear, and divide ) Mr. TITE rose amidst loud cries of " divide," and for several minutes addressed the house in what was little better than dumb motions. The purport of the hon. gentleman's remarks was understood to be that the six inch scale having been found large enough for Ireland, ought to be sufficient for Scotland. The question was then put that the vote be reduced from 151,7441. to 115,7441., and the house divided. the noble earl has relied, there are not wanting plausible IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. arguments, of which, I must do the noble earl the justice to say he has made the most in support of a measure which arises from temporary causes. I admit that the amount in question at present is very inconsiderable. I admit 1 that in the localities where that tax is levied it has been I the cause of considerable irritation and difficulty. I ad mit also that if this bill do not pass, and the Act of 1854 were to be repealed, the clergy would experience great difficulty in levying this tax. But I am not without hope that I shall succeed in convincing your lordships that, even upon the low ground of expediency upon which my noble friend defends this bill there are arguments which will afford a complete reply. But beyond that I shall base my opposition upon higher grounds than that of ex pediency—l shall rely upon principle, to which this bill is diametrically opposed. (Hear, hear.) If this bill can be shown to be a violation of the most sacred rights of property—of prOperty not only enjoyed for a long sac cession of years, but the right to which has been con firmed within the last three years by additional legisla tion, then I think it will be unworthy of this house to decide this matter upon such grounds as the noble earl has suggested, and which, I may be permitted to say, without disrespect to the noble earl, are unworthy of a Government which undertakes the responsibility of con ducting the affairs of a great nation. My noble friend has told us truly that this ministers' money is a tax which was imposed upon certain descriptions of property as long ago as the reign of Charles 11. It wits imposed upon certain towns in Ireland, and has continued from that time to be levied upon certain houses in those towns. It will, perhaps, be a proper moment for me to take an opportunity of replying to the challenge of the noble earl to draw the distinction, which he says must be drawn, to warrant opposition, between ministers' money and those charges which were dealt with by Earl Grey's Go vernment in 1832-3. I have the recollection of that period clearly in my mind, for in the responsible situa tion which I filled in that Government the arrangement of church affairs in Ireland cost me no little anxiety and nem; ness. But lam happy to believe that those mea sures, stringent as they were, and opposed as they were by the friends of the Established Church, by the adver saries of the church, and also by some members of that Cabinet in which I held a seat, are now acknowledged to have rescued that church from a position of great danger. (Hear.) I will just venture to bring before your lordships the circumstances in which the established Church in Ireland found itself in 1832-3. At that time there was a violent crusade against the existence of that church, and in every possible way it wa assaulted by a large and powerful political body, led and encouraged by the late Mr. O'Connell. Teat opposition was directed against tithes, against vestry case, against ministers' money ; in short, against every form in which pecuniary provision was made for the Protestant Church iu Ireland. It is unnecessary to remind your lordships of the very painful circumstances in which the clergy of that coun try were then placed. It is sufficient to say that tithes which were not then commuted had to be collected in kind from the very lowest classes of the population ; fur in consequence of the extraordinary subdivision of land, which prevailsd then to a greater extent than at present, the clergy were obliged to collect their tithes directly from the occupiers. Of course, that was a state of things which gave great facilities for practical opposition, as well as great ground for complaint as to the policy of the existing system. The result was that nine tenths of the clergy in Ireland were absolutely deprived of their in comes, or, if not deprived of them, they experienced the most violent opposition in collecting their tithes, not only from their own parishioners, but from large bodies of men who came from other dis tricts to aid those who refused to pay. The oppo sition which was then offered to the levy of tithes was much more formidable than that which is now offered to the collection of minister's money. According to the principle of the noble earl, because it was ex tremely hazardous and expensive to collect the tithes, we ought to have given way to those who resisted the ope ration of the law, to have abolished the tithes altogether, and to have deprived the clergy of their revenues. The opposition which the Government of that day had to en counter was a thousandfold greater than any little paltry opposition which the Government of the present day have to meet in maintaining the law and discharging what I believe to be the duty of the Execu'ive. But what was the course which we pursued at that time? We determined to give every support to the clergy. I do not mean to say that the police were employed in the collec tion of tithes, but both the police and the military were actively, diligently, and constantly employed in protect ing the persons of those who, in the discharge of a law ful duty, exposed themselves to risk and danger. Nay, further, when the tithes which were taken in kind were seized and brought into the market no purchaser was found who would venture to come forward and buy, in consequence of the universal excitement and dissatisfac tion which prevailed. What was done? The Government became purchasers of the tithes, and they supplied the military with forage from the bay and corn so forced into the market. They were purchasers whom no intimida tion could deter, and the consequence was that much greater facilities were given for realising the tithes. But, undoubtedly, this was a state of things which it would have been unsafe, dangerous, and impossible long to continue. What, then, was the course which the Go vernment took ? They supported the claims of the clergy, and refused to yield to those who were depriving them of the means of living. In 183 a they took upon themselves the collection of the tithe upon a memorial from the clergy that they were unable to raise them. In that year a sum of 60,0001., and in 1833 a sum of 1,000,000/. were advanced to pay up the claims of the clergy upon the tithes of those years, which were collected .by the Government themselves ; but in the meantime the sal'ent points of attack—the real ob sections to the operations of the law—were met by the measures which we adopted. Those measures consisted, first, in the compulsory commutation of the tithes for a fixed money -payment; and, secondly, in charging the landlord, insteed of the tenant, with the burden of the tithes, prospective upon the falling in of each particular lease, and prospective in the case of a tenant-at-will upon the expiration of 12 or 18 months. It wee also provided that those landlords who chose voluntarily to anticipate the time when the burden would fall upon them would receive a reduction of charge to the amount of 25 per cent. The practical operation of those measures was this : Foreseeing that the burden must in the course of a very short time fall upon them, the consequence of which would be that the feelings of the tenantry would cease to be excited, and the collection of the tithes would he easy, a certain proportion of the landowners came for ward and voluntarily took the burden upon themselves, and, after considerable discussion, an arrangement was finally adopted by which the prospective change was made immediate, the whole burden being at once thrown upon the landlords, who received a reduction of 25 per cent. Such was the course Government pursued with re spect to the tithes. They supported the claim, they main• tained the principle, they defended the property, but they removed those portions of the law which rendered it open to serious objection. and liable to be easily op posed and successfully resisted. (Cheers.) I beg pardon of your lordships for occupying so much of your time in pointing out the difference in principle, unperceived by the noble earl, between the course pursued by the Go vernment of Earl Grey in dealing with the tithes and that suggested by the bill before us. Earl GRANVILLE— What I said was, that I could see no difference in principle between the present bill and the measure proposed by the Government of Earl Grey relative to church rates, The Earl of DERBY— I can assure the noble earl that I shall not bee sight of that question. Well, the next subject that had to be dealt with was the church cess. It amounted in all to about 60,0001. a-year, and its charac ter may be briefly described. It was to be leviable by the vestries of the different parishes according to their discretion ; but there was this peculiarity connected with it, that if, as in England, all the parishioners in Ireland had been entitled to vote in vestry on the question of church cess not a farthing would have been received from one end of the country to the other. What, therefore, was the course pursued ? Why, the Roman Catholics, the bulk of whom paid the church cess in every parish, the moment the ordinary parish business was transacted were cornptl'ed to leave the place where the vestry was sitting, and then the few Froteetant parishioners who re mained fixed the amount of the tax for the support of Woe church. That was a state of things which necessarily produced great irritation, dissatisfaction, and tin wiling tress on the part of the Roman Catholic population to pay the cess, and great unwillingness, let me add, on the part of the Protestants to impose such a burden upon those who had oo voice in the matter. But in Ireland there was another irregularity which could not be found in England. The law of twentieths, which was equiva lent in principle to tenths in England, had been abolish ed by an act of Queen Anne, yet the first-fruits of all becefices in Ireland, in lieu of being paid over, as in this country, to a board of first-fruits, were used for defray. ing those char g es which fell upon th e ves t ry cess, which was, in point if fact, subsidiary to the amount of the first-fruits. I should say also that while, on the one hand, the clergy of that time were deprived of most of the pro ceeds of their benefices, the churches, on the other, were universally falling into decay; the amount of repairs was utterly insufficient ; and about half the benefices in Ire• land were without glebe-houses. A third of the parishes in Ireland—about 450—were below 2001., and there was an urgent demand in the first place for the repair of churches; in the r ext, for the enlargement of existing and the building of new churches ; in the third, for the erec tion of glebe-houses for the clergy; and, in the fourth, for raising the miserably deficient income to a certain de cent provision for a clergyman and his family. The course which the Government took was utterly to aholi.h the vestry cess, amounting to 60,0001., and to relieve the clergy altogether from the payment of first fruits, which were liable to the payment of the same charge ; bet in lieu of first-fruits and vestry cess, a pros pective charge was laid upon all benefices varying from five to 15 per cent., gradually rising according to the value of the living, but not touching those below 2004 a-year. It was also provided that, as we have seen done with certain carom les in England, certain bishoprics in Ireland should be supersoded,the numberbeing toolarge, and that the funds arising from those sees should be de voted to the purposes I have already mentioned—a mea sure in no wa y incons i stent w i t h the interests of the Church. A further provision was also m ad e by w hi c h the tenant s o f bishops' leases, upon consideration of the Payment of a certain 911r11 of money down, were enabled to convert the leases which they held for a number of into perpetuPtoewneanr years, with a al e o i f e: r e n p e ay w i a n l g at t h c e er m ta o i nneyfixed h i ° p il e ri t o h d e s ; had agreed t o pay fo r t; sum e renewal of th e i r l eases , t oge . tiler with an additional in consideration of the ad vantages which they might be expected to derive from engagements. The whole of the permanency of their ti ated by the late Earl these sums together vvere, li-year, and the following was the Grey, in hi s pla2e in this nouse to amount t 3 some- ' where about 150,0001. HOUSE OF LORDS.--(YESTERDAY.) - - - The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice that on Tuesday next he should present a petition from the offi cers of the Swiss Legion, complaining of the agreement Amin which they had been enrolled. viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Cashel, and several other places in Ireland against the Ministers' Money Bill. The noble lord said he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petitioners. The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from nathkeale to the same effect. Lord DONOUGHMORE presented a great number of similar petitions. The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND presented a petition from a place in Ireland in favour of an altera .tion in the superannuation fund. The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from Moat, in the caunty of Westmeath, against the Minis ters Money Bill. The right hon. prelate also presented a petition from a number of clergymen against the clause to be proposed this evening in the Matrimonial and ' Divorce Blll.The petitioners prayed to be relieved from performing marriages under conditions which they be lieved to be contrary to the Word of God. SECOND READINGS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following bills were read a second time :—St. Helen's Canal and Railway, Kidegrove Market, Dumbarton Water. THIRD READINGS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, Fleming's Estate Bill and the Bedale and Leyburn Railway were read a third time and passed. MINISTERS MONEY (IRELAND) BILL. The order of the day for the second reading of the bill bating been read, Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that, as the subject was one with which noble lords were generally familiar, he might fairly con tent himself with stating briefly the grounds upon which Government had decided upon adopting the measure as their own, and recommending their lordships to concur i n it ; but as there might be some who were not ac quainted with all the particulars of the case upon which the proposed change in the law was founded, he would in the first place lay before them a short history of the tax and.of the steps taken from time to time in connec t Lion with it, and which had brought the Government under the obligation to take the course they had deter mined upon. The noble earl then proceeded to describe the circumstances ender which the tax was originally imposed in the reign of Charles IL, in three of the prin cipal towns in Ireland, in which for political purposes it was thought desirable to establish Proteetsnt corm:num • ties, and the change effected by the act of James IL, deducingfrom the last-mentioned enactment the inference that even at that early period it way felt as a grievance by beth Roman Catholics and Protestants. From that time it had continued to animate and promote religious discord and strife in those towns in which it was levied. Their lordships would recollect that in 1833 an act was pas,esd, which had been attended with great benefit to • Ireland, for abolishing the church cess in Ireland, a measure for which great credit was due to the Govern , ment of Lord Grey, but more especially to the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), who was at that time Chief Secretary lor Ireland. Regarding the impost of church coils and that of ministers' money there were many fea tures in common, and in those points in which they differed the case against the latter was far stronger ti an that against the church cess. For instance, the church cess was of much more ancient origin than mini sters' money. It brought to the church a much larger revenue, the sum collected being about 70,0001. a year. It was more equally distributed over the whole country, Protestant Dissenters, Roman Catholics, and members of the Established Church, all contributing to it. The noble earl (Derby) who had given notice of an amendment to the present bill would favour the house by explaining what in his view constituted the distinction between the two charges, and why the bill lee introduced and carried in 1833, abolishing the church cess, omitted to deal with ministers' money also. If that omission were intentional, perhaps the noble earl would further favour the house by an explanation of what was the meaning and intention of the 73,1 section of that act, • which provided that in all parishes or places where by • virtue of any existing law, provision might be made, by vestry or other assessment, for the payment of the ministers or officers of the C h urch, such provision should thenceforth wholly cease and determine, and that - it should be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, out of the funds vested in their hand, to provide fur such objects. With such a clause in the act of Parliament, he confessed he could not undeietand how it was that mi. niaters'enoney still existed. No doubt exeellent technical reasons might be given, and iu stating what those rea sons were he trusted the noble earl would also state what, if any, difference in principle there was, in his opinion, between the two imposts. (Hear.) He had no wish to quote Hansard as to what took place during the pro gress of the Church Temporalities Act, but he found generally that it was argued by Lord Althorp on the I,round of the state of Ireland,, and the necessity of removing the existing causes of religions diffe, traces in th 'country, while the noble earl contended, very suc cessfully, that the measure would tend to the advantage rather than the injury of the Established Church in Ireland. But every argument that was advanced by the noble earl and his colleagues in support of that bill and against the church cess applied in an infinitely greater degree in favotfr of the present bill, and against the tax of ministers' money. Some little time after the passing of the act be alluded to—about fif teen years ago—the question of ministers' money was brought under the consideration of Parliament. First, a proposition to abolish it altogether was brought for - ward, which was rejected. The next step was the ap pointment of a committee of the House of Commons in 1848, and that committee unanimously reported that the evils of the tax were very great, but they differed as to the cxetct mode in which a remedy shoul fbe applied. The opposition to the tax continued until at length, when the noble earl was at the head of the adininiatration, a pro mise was given on the part of the Government to bring in a bill for the settlement of the question, and when the null-, earl advised their lordships now to oppose a mea sure passed by the other house for the same purpose, he • ought at least to esp'ain what was the nature of the bill which, had he remained in office, would have been sut.- ruitted to Parliament, and in what respect it differed, at all events as regarded its general principle, from the one now under consideration. The noble earl was succeeded in office by his (Earl Granville's) nods friend the Earl of Aberdeen, and while he was at the head of the Govern ment a bill was brought in which was intended as a re medy for the evil. But as one who had been a party to the introduction of that measure, he must say that while in some of its principal objects it had succeeded in ethers it bad entirely failed. The objects of that bill were to se cure a fixed lecorne to the clergymen who were dependent upon this tax, instead of theprecarious and varying one, to relieve them from the unpopelarity which the mode of collecting the tam occa-ioned ; and to relieve the poor, cra wry large propoition of them, who contributed to the impost, from their liability. That was, it absolved all who inhabited hones under 101. a year in value, which would include probably three-fourths of the whole number. In return for these advantages secured to the ministers, their nominal incomes{ were reduced 25 per cent. ; but he believed, notwithstanding, that it was a matter of great satisfaction to them to receive the re• duced income instead of the larger amount accompanied by the uncertainty and nnpopelarity which accompanied it, The relief to the poor householder had been great, but not so great as was expected, inasmuch as the minis ters were cot in the habit of enforcing the rate from them, But the evil that had not been met was the dif ficulty of collection. The act provided that the corpora bone ebonll collect the rate, and pay over the arnouet to the civil paymaster, who MO to band it over to the con. missioners. In 7 of the corporations not only had the col lection failed, but the corporations refused to collect it. The task imposed by the act on the corporation was a most disagreeable one. that of collmtiug a rate eliich they believed to be unjust, and to compel them to de so was no easy task for the lilxecuiee. Aii action had been brought against the cerp Jation of Cork by the Govern- I *Dent, and a verdict been obtained for 3,0001., but ac companied by a statement from the judge that the law was inoperative, and the machinery provided by the act altogether inadequate for its purpose. An appeal was made which put back the matter for two years, and it appeared that it might be kept hack for two years more, so that it would be impossible to recover under 4 years. He asked whether, in the case of so small a sum, the Government had, or had not, acted wisely in the course they had pursued He did not believe that the argument respeeting the diminution of the property of the church would be urged by the men who had carried the Church T emu). ratifies Act, nor could it be said that they were transferring it to a fund which was una bl e t o b ear i t. H e p O l lue.e.etki d that, with a proper r e g a rd t o economy, t h ere be no difficulty in providing for this extra charge on the ecclesiastical fund. He knew that at present there was not surplus, - an d he gave the noble ear l th e f u ll be mfinot of that ttha st was ett' but when they remembered that this to the Cathcli c ry. re maining cause of exasperation left I,agaist the Established Church, surely it was ivortZ little exertion, in th e di rec ti on o f economy, to remove it. Looking at the returns, he saw that the expense of clerks secretaries was 23,000 i., but then a good deal neightanee saved by consolidation. He had heard that the ehwaerfe formt sacramental elements was enormous, and there other points upon which a reduction might be u la d e. n the ven in the constitu- Von of the board itself he believed stated some of the re was considerable room for economy. He had now rea sons which bad induced the Government to propose this bill, and he ventured to p it it to the i r loreet,i pa whether they would not consider the question with the view to its practical results. If they adoptedit, they would remove the only cause of irritation remaining in Ireland es re garded the Established Church ; they rejected it, they would, in a matter in which or ly 12 ,000 i. altar was involved, place themselves in collision with the other house of parliament, The practical difficulties of the pre sent state of things were immense. The commissi oners under the act did not receive the money; the Govern ment did net hesitate to put the law in force ; b u t , on the other h an d , the expense was enormous, while the machinery was almost inoperative. As to bringing actio n s against corporations which had no property, arid in the face of a majority of 135 in the House of Commons, it was perfectly r i di culous. Under al! the circumstances he earnestly appealed to their lordships to pass tike bill. The Earl of DERBY rose and said—My lords, I must confess it is not without some reluctance that I nbw rise to offer my most unhesitating, uncompromising opposi tion to the hill which is no before U. lam rend to ad mit . upii the low ground of expediency upon which atone . . _ _ • lIIMMNIIINII NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. HAYTER a new writ was ordered to issue for Banff in the room of the Earl of Fife, who has accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. COMMUNICATION WITH DUBLIN. Mr. REPTON asked what arrangements had been made for improving the communication between London and Dublin ? Mr. WILSON said that he was sorry to say that the Government had not yet received any communication from the United Companies, and he was unable to add anything to his former statement on the subject. ORDNANCE MAP OF DUBLIN. Mr. LIDDELL asked when any part of the Dublin Ordnance Map would be ready for ielivery to the public? Mr. WILSON said he could not then answer the question, but would do so on Monday. TREATMENT OF LUNATICS. Sir J. OGILVY asked the Lord-advocate if it was his intention to make any provision in his Lunacy BM for the proper management and training of w eak or im becile chi!dren? The LORD-ADVOCATE said that the Lunacy Bill would be before the house to-night, but he thought it would not be desirable to introduce what the hon. gentleman alluded to in the bill. PORT OF DUBLIN. Mr. 3. EWART moved for returns of the ac counts of all receipts and disbursements by the cor poration for preserving and maintaining the port of Dublin from the 31st of December, 1855, to the latest period to which the same has been made up: of all moneys borrowed by debenture or otherwise : and, statement of the surplus receipts above disburse ments for the year ending Dec. 31, 1856 ; and of the total surplus on the above day, and of the application or investment of such surplus, and the dates thereof, and of the dividends received tberefrom.—Agreed to. HARBOUR EXAMINATION. Mr. MACARTNEY moved for a copy of the re port made by the Admiralty upon the harbours of Port patrick and Donaghadee, lately examined by Captain Vetch, R.N., with the estimate for improving the same sufficiently to afford accommodation to vessels capable of undertaking the carriage of mails between Scotland and Ireland.--Agreed to. SAVINGS BANKS. Viscount GODERICH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the passing of the Savings Banks Bill during the present session, he would be willing to consent to the appointment of a select committee next year to inquire into and consider the whole state of the law relating to savings banks, with a view to its consolidation and amendment? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in the event of the passing of the Savings Bank Bill this session, he should be prepared next session to assent to the appointment of a committee, having fur its object the general consideration of the law with reference to savings' banks, both as regarded their constitution and the financial questions that had been raised by gentle men opposite, with a view to the reconsideration of the statutary enactments for their consolidation. Mr. HADFIELD inquired if he intended to persevere with the bill this session ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did but move the postponement of the order in reference to the bill from Monday till Thursday next. PUBLIC CHARITIES. Mr. HA.RDCASTLE gave notice that on Monday next he should move for leave to bring is a bill for the incorporation of public charities. SUPPLY.—ORGANISATION OF THE ARMY. On Mr. FITZROY bringing up the report of the com mittee of supply, Gan. PEEL called the attention of the house to por tions of the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Com mittee and the Chelsea Commission, showing the neces sity of defining the responsibility and duties of the vari ous departments. The gallant officer said that he had given the subject his serious attention during the past two years, and from having served both on the Sebastopol Cmumittee and the Chelsea Commission, he had had an opportunity of becoming thoroughly ac quainted with the subject, and he expressed an opinion that the resin nausea of the suffering, &c., in the Crimea were owing to a want of proper organisation. He called attention to the subject in proper feeling and sympathy towards the various departments of the army, from a helief that if they really knew what their duties were, they would efficiently discharge them. The gallant officer then read copious extracts from the reports of the Sebastopol committee, the et imean commission- era, aid the Chelsea commissioners, in sup port of his statement, and said that he believed the noble lord at the bead of the War Department, with the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, could, without much difficulty, frame the required regulations, which he (Gen. Peel) thought should be of a permanent charawer, and not :subject to the capricious alterations of any successive Secretary of War, who might or might not be competent for the discharge of the duties of the office. These regulations should also embrace a defini tion of the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary for War. Mr. E. ELLICE, senior , confirmed the opi n i ons expressed by the gallant officer, and concurred in his suggestions. At presentthere was great hesitation on the part of heads of departments to state where responsibility rested, and he thought it would be more satisfactory to this house and the country if s )me definite regulation were laid down for the Government and the superin tendents of the different departments connected with the army and navy. He doubted if the country would consent to the continuance of the present amount of estimates in time of peace—(hear, hear, and cheers) — and he urged on the Government necessary caution in reducing the estimates, so that an efficient staff might be maintained, capable of being ea=ily expanded in a time of war. He expressed an adverse opinion as to the keeping up great camps like Aldershot, relative to the probable effect on tl-ei country generally. He then called attention to the great amounts that were passed yearly for barracks, and he doubted if the house was at all ac quainted with their state, what they were used for and where they were, and expressed an opinion that it would have been better for the disciplineand morals of the army if the men had been lodged in these barracks, instead of being collected together in large camps. He and the Government had the same object in view, that of main taining the efficiency of the army, but they appeared to differ from the mode in which it could be attained. He however thought the plan he suggested would have been found to be the best. (Hear.) It was no doubt painful to put aside old officers. They ought to be libe rally rewarded for their past services; but in considering the state of the army and its future requirements he thought these old officers should be plainly told that they must make way for younger officers who should not be found wanting in time of necessity. Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the hon. and gallant officer had done the country some service in calling the attention of the house to this eubject, and he ex pressed a hope that her Majesty's Government would be prepared to state to the house that the mili tary departments were really understood, and strictly defined, so that should this country be again involved in war the country should be effectually secured against a repetition of the evils they all had so lately to de plore. He also considered that, first and fore mos t, th e power and duties of the Secretary of War should be explicitly laid down. Sir W. CODRINGTON said that out the duties of the Secretary of War were more of a civil than military character, he should say but little about them. He be lieved the object of its establishment was to carry out unity of action in the various departments of the army. The discipline of the army was lets to the Commander in -Chief, but he (Sir W. Codrington) believed there would be some difficulty under the present system to bring borne responsibility to any person in authority in the army. He suggested that the Secretary of War should be responsible for the financial departments only of the army ' • and that as the Commander-in-Chief had to deal with the discipline of the army, he should be made responsible for it, and to do that the rewards of the army should be under his control. He considered the establishment of camps of great benefit in instructing the soldier in his duties. Mr. HENLEY approved of the movement of the Government officers, and hoped it would result in the benefit of the army. Everything 'required by a soldier should be obtained easily and rapidly, and if any delay took place, easy of being pointed ont, and the party to blame censured if necessary. Sir J. TRELAWNEY referred to the formation of officers, especially those on the staff in this and in fo reign countries. On the continent an officer had to pass through various stages before he became a member of the staff, which was not the case in this country. He called attentio n t o t w o or three technical mat ters in reference to officers' pay, and to the lax manner in which officers acted in reference to the scl deer's pocket-ledger, which was a book wherein he ought to keep a proper account of the pay he bad received, so that in time of war, if anything happened to the regi mental books, the production of his pocket-ledger, if properly kept, was taken as proof of the pay due to him. Lord PALMERSTON, in reference to barrack ac commodation, said that it. was scanty throughout the coy, p la u c n e tr and to erect i t f h i w a e t ms was necessary where thereto build them, was ample stphaeceb forest exercising the soldiers, such as at Aldershot, which, from its central position, would be found beneficial in times of war. Tie admitted the importance of the question before the house, and expressed an opinion that the gallant -general (General Peel) was not accu rately acquainted with the facts connected with the sub Jed. After some further observations frdm Mr. Stafford, Mr. Baillie , Capt. Vivian, Sir F. Smith, Mr. Newde gate, and others, the vote was confirmed. THE ORDNANCE SURVEY . OF SCOTLAND. On the next vote (151,7441.), for education and scien tific branches), Sir D. ORREYS complained of the large expense the coun&Y was put to for the survey of Scotland, which was so minute, as to mark out the site of every garden walk and pump upon the various estates. Such maps were perfectly unnecessary for any national purposes, and were simply surveys of estates fur the advantage of the private landowners at the country's expense. The sub ject had been brought forward on a former occasion, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer got out of the difficulty by referring it to a committee of nine members, of whom eight were Scotch. (A. laugh.) Of course nothing was (one, and as it was a question involving an expense of God knows how many millions of money, he should move that the survey of Eootland, on the scale of 2b inokep For the reduction Against it Majority 172 162 -10 115,744/., the reduced vote, being put, Mr. BLACKBURN said equal ju-►ice demanded that the vote for the English survey should be put on the same footing as the Scotch, he should, therefore, propose that that cum be reduced by the sum of 24,4301., being the difference between the cost of the twenty-five inch and the six inch scale. The house then divided, when the numbers were for the motion— Ayes Noes Majority -268 The amendment was therefore lost. On the motion that the house do adopt the resolution so amended, Lord ELME) said the discussion lead been between the merits of the 25 and 6-inch scales, and they had de cided that the 25-inch scale in Scotland should not be continued. By the Second vote, what bad been nega tived in Scotland had been affirmed in England. He congratulated the house on the consistency of their deci sion. Sir DENHAM NORREYS defended his conduct in connection with the assertions he had made, that Eng land bad been surveyed on a 6-inch scale. He held in bar hand a map which justified the vote be and the house had given. Had he believed that the 25-inch scale was being carried on in England he should not have opposed the vote for the same scale in Scorland. Mr. HENLEY said he believed the house intended to put down the 25-inch scale in England as well as in Scotland. The whole tenour of the debate had proved that to be de intention. lie did not think there was any wish to treat Scotland differently to England. (fleir, hear ) Mr BLAS'KBURN disclaimed any intention to spite Sc , tlend , 11 the amendment he ha made. Lord PALMERSTON said be believed the whole county of Durham had been sure yed on the 25-inch, sc, , le. But the intention of the house, as he utv!eretood it from the first vote, was that , no further surveys should be made on that scale. (Hear, hear.) Mr. E. ELLICE expressed his astonishment at the uncertainty which appeared to exist among the officers of the survey, as to the scale on which the survey fur the county of Durham had been conducted. So far from the 25 inch scale being too large, he had had the opinion of an able manager of the mint-re' in , erests, that to he of any value for the mineral districts the scale ought to be 11 feet to the mile. (Laughter.) It appeared that 3 25-inch survey had been going on in Du!barn without that house having any knowledge oir the subject. (Hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask the Speaker a gees' Lion upon a matter of form. The house was now called upen to affirm a vote supposed to have been arrived at by some committee, but there was b 0 committee thee sitting. The SPEAKER—The business before the house is the consideration of the report of the Committee of Sur ply, and what the house has dune has been to amend a resolution which has been passed by that committee. The question, therefore, which I have to put t.) the house is that this house agrees with the resolution of the committee as it has now been amended. Th,a question was then put and agreed te. Tne remaining votes included in the report were ale° agreed to. - The Ecclesiastical Corporations Blt and the Ecclesi astical Commission Bill were, after a short conversation , read a second time, with a view of being referred to a select committee TURNPIKE TRUSTS ARRANGEMENT BILL. This bill went throuvh emmnittee. INSURANCE OF LIVES (ABATEMENT OF _ _ COME TAX) CONTINUANCE BILL. This hill went thvou g h committee. MARRIED WOMEN'S REVERSIONARY INTE- REST BILL The house went into committee on this bill. Mr. DOBBS proposed an amendment in clause 1 to the effect of restricting the power of dispo , ition given by the act to married women of the personal property after marriage. Mr. MA LINS objected to the amendment, as it would dastry the value of the bill altogether. The amendment was negatived w,thout a division. The bill, after some amendments, passed through committee. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house aaj.)urhed at a quarter to two o'clock. Country Markets. BOSTON—JUNE 17. Our market this morning was thinly attended, and there was a short supply of all kinds of grain, which met a slow demand at fully 2s to 3s per qr. higher prices, the best samples of red wheat realising 655. Of oats and bean , ' few on offer, at about last week's rates. Nothing doing in barley and peas. Prices :—Wheat, red, 54s Od to 65s Od; new, to — 0 ; white, 613 0.1 to 67s Od, extra, 695. Barley, 40$ Od to 47s 01. Oaus 203 to 'As. Peas, 40• to 44s Od. Beans, 440 01 to 48s 01 per qr. NEWARK—JuNz 17. A fair attendance and a good supply of grain, Whet" met a ready sale, and was Zs in advance. Other articles as before. Wheat, white 63s to 665, red 63s to 70s; barley, malting 44s to 48s, grinding 36s to 38s; oats, 24st. 32s to 345, 221 , 26s to 28s ; beans, to 52s ; malt, 76s to 80s ; peas, to 463; tares, 41s to 48s per qr. LOUTH—JUNE 17. We had a moderate supply of grain at to•day's no" ket, and a good attendance. Wheat met a very inactiv i l demand at 2 , 1 to 3s advance. Nothing doing in barleY• Other kinds at previous rates. Wheat, 603 to 65s ; extra, 6Gs ; barley 41s to 4-4 s ; ost o 23s to 25s ; beans, 43s to 465. MANCHESTER--JUNE 18. An average attendance at our market to-day, and tiler. was a moderate demand for wheat, at an advance of 2, to 38 per qr. on English, and 2d to 3d per 701 b on American: Flour iu some instances held for an advance of 2s per WI on this day se'nnight, but a slow sale. Oats and oatrael" at previous rates. English beans rather higher. GLASGOW-JuNE 17. At this day's market the high pretensions of holdero rather checked business. Wheat 6d dearer, but a slot sale at the a ivance. Red American made 32s and Danis' 295. Barley of fine quality a retail sale at firmer prices. Beans and peas at late rates. 0 .ts, trade quiet. Oat meal fetches full prices. Indian corn, 22s 6d for mixed -- 23s for yellow. EDINBURGH GRAIN.—J TYNE 17. The supply of grain of all kinds to-day was large, an d sales dull for all kinds of grain, and cheaper. Wheat, on the top, is ed up, and on the hverAge N3d down. Barley, Os 6d up on the top, and Os 5d down on the average. Oats on the top is 6d down, and on the average Os 5.1 down. Beans on the top 2s down, a nd on the average is 6d down. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat £2 6 10 11-12ths. Do. new -12th. Barley Oats lll 3 6-12ths. Beans -12ths. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 2067 qrs sold 1715 qrs Barley 173 qrs sold 145 qrs Oats 126 qrs sold 805 qre Beans 126 qrs sold 94 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD.—.TIINE 16. There was a good supply of fat beasts to-day, with a fair attendance of buyers. The demand flat, and the greater part left unsold. The supply of sheep was very 1011 and fully maintaining form e r p r i ces . L am b s a g'V t supply. Fat and store c a lv es a f u ll average number. F at pigs more plentiful. The following were the quotations :—Beef, 7d to ri d ; mutton, 7d to 8d ; lamb, —d to td ; ve a l, 6 3 d tc 7d Pe r lb. ; pigs, lls Od to lls 6d per score; rough fat, 5s 3i to per 141 b.; hides, 4,}d to 6,d per lb ; calf-skins, 4td D i) 62 per lb. TRADE REPORT.—MANCHESTER, Tuesday,—Busin egg ' on the whole, was rather slacker to-day in yarns than last Tuesday, buyers having supplied themselves sufflei ciently for the present. Spinners, however, remain Per fectly firm in their demands ; indeed, in some instance an advance is still insisted on, and sometimes concede"' ADvlt MIS is MENT. I—SIGHT AND HEARING. SPECTACLES."' POWERFUL TELESCOPES.— OPERA, RACE, A ND P ERS PECTIV I GLASSES.—Messrs. S. and B. 6olomons, opticians, 39, Ai m marle-qreet, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the York Ho t s' W,--By her Majesty's Roy a l L e tt ers P a t en t f or va l ua ble extraordinary improvements in the most powerful and bra liant T lescopes, Camp, Kacccourse, Opera, ana Perspecti ve Glssses, to know th e di s t ances. Th ese telescopes 1,05 e; such extraordinary p ower th a t some , th ree an d a -h a lf i nebe" with an extra . eye-p ece will show distinctl4 Jupiter's moo ns ' .Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same telescope can be seen a poison's countenance three-andsa-half mil so dig ; taut, ,nd au object from 16 to 20 mil es . F or th e w aistcoa t pocket, an are of larger, and all sizes, with inc , easi, e g powers accordingly. The Royal Exhibiti on , 1851.—A vaL u ; able ewly-inveute l very small po wer f u l W a i s t coa t Pocke t Glass, the sizo of a walnut, by which a person can be see n and known one and a half mile distant. They answer over/ purpose on the race-course, and at the Opera 110t 1880 ' Ciuntry scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 Mill* They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting , to sportsmen, gentlemen, g-mekeepers, and ton lets. Oper ,l ! Camp, Perspeet , ve, and Raae,ourse blesses, with wonderfu l powers. —lnvalu,ble preserving Spectacle Lenses of th e 4roa, est transparent power The great advantage derived from this invention is, that vision impaired becomes Pre: served and strengthened, and very agel personeare enable d to employ their sight at the most minute occupation -- can see with these lenses of a much less magnifying power —and they do not require the frequent change 4 to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance Pow!: can be suited at the mod remote part of the world by ace"; in 0. , e of th e g l asses out of their spect ties iu a letter , an stating the dist nee from the eye they can read small print with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles 11 sta bug their ago. Deafuess.—New Dis ' , very.—Tae or ganic Vibrator, an txtra , rdi6arily powerful, smal invented , nqtrument for deafness, entirely diff rent from 5 ' others, surpasses anything of the kind that Is as Leen, or pro' bab y ever can be i_rodueed. Being of the same colour en Lie skin, is not perc •ptible. It enables deaf persons to hea r t dis inctly at church and at public assembli e s, • the unplettea l d i sensation ~ f tinging noises in the ears is entirely crab unpleased' and t affords all the assistance that possibly could be desireJ —3), •• I 's em arl es street, Picetdilly.—Observe—opposite tbe York Hotel. W BIRTHS, OF A SON. On the 18th inst., at 33, Canonbury-square, the wife °C Lindsay Walters. the On the 18th inst., at 45, Charlwood-street, wife of Commander David Spain, R.N. Or A DAUGHTER. O❑ the 17th inst., at 111, Glocester-place, Portmal” square, the lady of Captain N. Chichester, 7th Drago° l3 Guards. On the 13th inst., at 25, Blomfield-road, Maida-hill, th e wife of F. S. Carpenter, Esq. MARRIED. On the 18th inst., at St. Marylebone parish church, Fr e ' derick Willis Farrer, of 3, Glocester-terrac e , Regents' park, to Mary, eldest daughter of George itichmond, of 10, York-street, Portman-square. On the 17th inst., at the Church of St. Luke, Chelsea' Win. Wood Pileher, Esq., of St. Margaret's, near Do per ' Kent, to Louisa Maria, eldest (laughter of William Bill' Esq., of Holies-place, Brompton. DIED. On the 17th inst., at Twickenham, Robert Enscoe, Ds c ll P aged 84. ea On the 17th inst. ! sudd en l y, J osep hi ne, w i fe o f Al-rd Bowness, 7, Little B r it a i n, and the youngest daoghtert. John Dawson, Esq., o f K en d a l an d Wi thers l ac k, ~„- rnorelaud. On the 17th inst., at Moffatt, N.B Be a trice,wife Major-General Dudgeon. fo On the 16th inst., at Edinburgh, Richard, only On Commander B. B. Creyke, R.N., aged 13. pn On the 15th i ns t ., at .11fildmay-park, Stoke Newingt° Wm. Langstaff, Esq., aged 69. On tho 15th inst , at Westbourne-park-terrace, 1 -10 r d, road, Arthur, youngest surviving son of Richard Abu 46, Conduit -street, Hanover-square, azed 26. aOnthsc: late lsth of Southampton, in inst., at Peckham, a ge aged 54. Sophia Rebe cc m thew e LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Moe, 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count," of Middlesex, Friday, June 19, 1857. Orr FR dingtoi stinger , Malik' Limeri either the 10 Fares t At the for Kil second yearly the stu day, th eepted: Dlvidei the 22 , :: for ex! Pi Thor Thon Ever daily. And Pollc Chief C ' F E pursual Act of Rules SPEC' Clatiou London Henri ay, pnrpos( lag cal Cop plying I nst. 15,1\1 L' elusion Erebus part, I due to her ow As a Admin lute, Nv by the her for jesty's Corn Frank] search has be 4 who R.N.) 1 ployme - Not induce tive se Englist of our it lies 1 proach never y Supi men, ii makes the fat , from tl his you existen On s scribed tmansv tender pathy • will ai believe We ( with u , Rode P.R.S. tesley, RI, So Richar F.R.S. Sir Mur eider g rap F.R. Rear7A Beat F.R. Lord Pros, Soci, M. Get Trea Sod B. Br( V.P Captai It. N F. B Rear-2 Ell i TM at glv side, B' coat, t tailor, G i ST, 8, Tc F. I T. B F.i Connl leek R. G Col. F.R kc. E. O.! Dow of AF Fre( Cha Dr Liet Pa &c Vic , Pr Cot