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

LAW IiTrET.T.IGEN6E.L(This Day.) COURT OF EXCHEQUER (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the Lnrd Chief Baron and a Special Jury.) CIRELLA V. THE CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY. This was an action for the recovery of 5001. damages for injury done to a model of Cronstadt exhibited at the Crystal Palace last year, arising from the alleged negligence of the company's servant.. The plaintiff is a Neapolitan exile, at present residing in Paris, and is a brother of Prince Cirella. He is a gentleman of some ability, and he constructed of board and plaster a model of the town, fortification, and harbour of Cron ..stadt, which he consigned to the care of an Italian named Fiz, carrying on business in London as a merchant and Custom-house agent. He exhibited the model in Piccadilly, where it was visited by parties connected with the government, and be was induced to imagine from what passed that the government would purchase it. The war however terminating about that time, his hopes in that quarter were dissipated, and he applied to the Crystal Palace Company who agreed to its being exhibited there for a period of not less than six months, and if sold to be paid 10 per cent. com mission. The model was accordingly sent to the palace Ind placed in that part devoted to tropical plants, where from beat, &c., it was said it received injury. The question in dispute was whether the company took sufficient care of the model, and it was contended by the company that Fiz approved of the spot for its exhibition, and that he was to supply a glass case, which he declined to do, and that the company to protect it put a calico awning over it. In answer to questions from Mr. Sergeant Hayes 'for the defendant, Fiz said that he offered the model to ' the Crystal Palace Company for 2001. Lord Chief Baron—Da I understand that you have the impudence to bring an action for 5001. damages for injury done to a model you valued at 2001. ? Witness said he had done so, and on being further questioned said he had no recollection of having offered it to Mr. Fergusson, the manager, for 1001. or guineas. The Lord Chief Baron—lf Mr. Fergusson swears that you offered it to him for 1001., will you undertake to say it is a falsehood ? Witness said he could not, because he had no recollec tion of it. The injury to the model took place in the earls , part of the year 1856, and the action was brought In June following, but delayed till the present time. Several witnesses were called, who stated the condi ti,-n of the model at the present time, but the Lord Chief Baron said that the injury must be assessed a , - cording to its condition in June last year, when the action was first brought. One of the witnesses, an Italian modeller valued the model at 7001. Mr. Sergeant Hayes contended that the model had received all reasonable care at the hands of the Crystal Palace Company, and that no real damage or want of care had been proved against them by the plaintiff's agent. Mr. Fergusson deposed that Fiz offered the model to him for 2001. and afterwards said he should be glad to take 1001. for it. He was quite clear on that point. Fiz selected the spot where the model was to be placed, which was in that part devoted to models, and witness caused it to be protected by a covering, and it was only removed on the day of the Qaeen's visit, the Peace tete day. The model of Sebastopol made at the palace which was twice the size of the one in question coat 401. That was a correct one, but this was an incorrect one. Cron stadt was represented as a rocky island, whereas , in truth, it was a low sandy ridge. He considered 501 . a good price for it to a person who wanted it. Every cue had been taken of the model. The frame or basis of the model did not appear to have been made of properly seasoned wood. The Lord Chief Baron in summing up, rem..rked on the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff. It could not be called — obtaining money under films pre tences, because that would be a crime, but it looked very much as if it was made in the hope] that the defen dants would pay probably 201. or 501. rather than defend this action. His lordship also remarked on the absence of the plaintiff, and said that, in point of fact, the ac tion should have been brought by Fiz. His I , ,rdt,hip ' also called attention to the delay in proceeding with the action. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. COITRr OF BANKRUPTCY. (Betore Mr—Commissioner Holroyd.) IN RE BOOTH. This bankrupt was described as of the City Central Saw Mills, Upper Whitecross-street, and had presented a petition under the Private Arrangement Act, but not having filed any Accounts, an argument was heard in the priiate room ; Mr. Slater appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Chidley fur creditors, when his Honour decided thatAhe case should be converted into a bankruptcy, and it was afterwards heard in open court, and the 30th of June appointed for choice of assignees. IN RE BROWN. This bankrupt bad carried on business as a clothier, and to day was appointed for Lis last examination. The debts are small, only 2861. ; and the assets—good debts, 681. 6s. ; property, 751. Mr. Cuidley, for the assignees, did not oppose, and the bankrupt passed. CRIMINAL COURT—(This Day.) OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Baron Channel!) THE GATE FATAL AFFRAY IN THE STRAND -RiCIIRIA Kendall, 26, was arraigned on the coroner's inquest for feloniously king and slaying Thomas Budson. The facts of this Case have neen so fully reported in The Sun that a repetition of them to-day is unnecessary. The jury acquitted the prisoner. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.—John Hind May, 'Milani Taylor, and G , ora-s David Nlyers, were indicted for obtaining from Mr. Thomas Gorman 2,534 dozen of cambric handkerchiefs, value 6471. 144. B'., and also from. Mr. Alexander Lawson 2,516 ch z?ri of cambric handkerchiefs, value 5831. Bs. 101, by false pretenses. _ The facts of the case appeared at length in this jour nal during the examination which took place at the Mansion Honie. The case was likely to occupy the court the whole of the day. NEW COURT. (Before the Recorder.) ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE.—James Saddington, 29, and Alfred Barker, were indicted for stealing from the person of Mr. William Forsyth two Bank of E , ,gland 5/. notes, two sovereigns, and some silver money ; and William Quiun was indicted for fd. >piously receiving one of the notes, well knowing the same to have been stolen. From the evidence, it appeared that on May 20, the prosecutor, who resides in the vicinity of Hammersmith, was on his way home when he entered a public-house. called the Royal Sussex Arms, and after partaking of some refreshment, left the house and proceeded down Hampshire Hog-lane, for a certain purp use. He was there seized by some person from behind, his coat was torn open and a hand was thrust into his coat-pocket, and his propertystolen therefrom. The prisoners Barker and Saddington were seen to go down Hampshire Hog-lane previously to the prosecutor going there. They afterwards returned up the lane and proceeded towards London. One-of the notes had been traced to the pos session of the prisoners. The trial was proceeding when our reporter left. 'THIRD COURT. (Before the Common Sergeant.) BURGLARY.—Williatis Kirg wag in:licted for burglar ously entering the premises of Mr. Sinclair, a licensed victualler, High—treet, Camden Town. It appeared from the evidence that on the morning of the 24th of May the prisoner was stopped by the police, at about a quarter before 4 o'clock, and on his not answer ing certain questions he was taken to the station-house, and on his person was found a bottle of *brandy, one of gin, one of mar, two single bottles containing sherry, a bag of farthings, two silver pencil-cases and other pro perty. The bottle bore the label of Mr. Sinc!air, and on inquiring there it was discovered that a burglary had been committed. The jury, without the slightest hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. A former conviction for burglary having been proved, The Common Sergeant sentenced him to four years penal servitude. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day). SOUTHWARK. Rolm lay Smith ON BOARD A HAMBURG STEAMER,—WiIIiam ' 4 labourer, was brought before Mr. Combe, charged with stealing five pounds weight of horse hair from the General Steatu%'Hamburg steamer, the property of the A cust om .h ouB 4 Vigation Company. just arrived fromlefficer stated that the Trident had the previous d burg with a general cargo, and on day the with several other la bourers, were e was lying off Horsl eydow in oi4charging it. The vessel n, and about six o'clock, as the prisoner was leaving tc, bulky under his jacket. tigee ashore, he saw something consequently asked him to show what he had there, w h, b and refused to stop, and fotow d e i d pp i e ai d m a , bag in jumped into a skiff alongside water. Witness immediately i s n eiz th ed e bold of the bag, which he found to cont a i n weight of horse hair, w hich ba d been entlifc five pounds the hold,' and then he det ained him until the e m a bale in ley came alongside, when he gate the prisone r P9lice g al. into cus tody. Mr. George Reid, Thames Police inspect or , sa i d bt., took the prisoner into custody , and conve y e d him to t ie Bermondsey station, w h e n the prisoner denied having taken the hair from a bale, but be said he p ick ed it tli c Mr. Combs asked the prisoner what answer he had to make to the charge ? He replied that the horse hair found on him was merely the sweepings of the bold. Thomas Coulson, mate oul son, mate of the vessel, denied that asser• tier. After the prisoner was detected by the Custom house officers,_ witness ( xlm i ne d the cargo, and found that one the bales in the hold bad been cut open. The prisoner bad been at work there, and be believed the pri soner to have stolen it. On the same day a case was broken into, and hardly a voyage but they lost property the same way. . _ Mr. Corohn committed the prisoner for trial. GREAT NORTHERN MEETING OF PREFERENCE SHARE HOLDERS.—A meeting of the preference shareholders in the Great Northern Railway was held yesterday, at Anderton's Hottl, and a resulution was• carried that the opposition to the bill now in parliament should be continued in the House of Lords. IRE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY the noble earl has relied, there are not wanting plausible arguments, of which, I must do the noble earl the justice to sty 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 that in the localities where that tax is levied it has been the cause of considerable irritation and diffienity. 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, bear.) 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 suc 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 bas 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 uneasiness. But I am happy to believe that those mea sures, stringent as they were, and opposed as they were by the friends of the Established Church, ley 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, That opposition was directed against tithes, against vestry cess, against ministers' money ; in short, against every form in which pecuniary revision was made for the Protestant Church in 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 ; for in consequence of the extraordinary subdivision of land, which prevail-d 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 sygtem. 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 I be 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 this hay 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 yi,l I to those who were depriving them of the means of living. In 1832 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 1,000,0001. 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 jections to the operations of the law—were met by the measures which we adopted. Those measures corsisted, first, in the compulsory commutation of the tithes for a fixed money-payment; and, secondly, in charging the elandlerd, instead 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 was 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 exc . ted. 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 discueeion, an arrangement was final) , 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 hill 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 lice 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 paris . h, the moment the ordinary parish business was transacted were compelled to leave the place where the vestry was sitting, and then the few Proteetant parishioners who re mained f ixed the amount of the tax for the support of the church. That was a state of things which necessarily produced great irritation, dissatisfaction, and unwiLing ness 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 no 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 benefices in Ireland, in lieu of being paid over, as in this country, to a board of first-fruits, were used for defray ing those charges which fell upon the vestry ones, which was, in point of 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 prca 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 next, 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 abolish the vestry cess, amounting to 60,000/., and to relieve the clergy altogether from the payment of first (mite, which were liable to the payment of the same charge ; but in lieu of first-fruits and vestry cos, 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 2001. a-year. elt was also provided that, as we have seen done with certain canoniies in England, certain bishoprics in Ireland should be superseded,the number being too large, and that the funds arising from those sees should be de voted to the purposes I have already mentioned—a mea sure in no way inconsistent with the interests of the Church. A further provision was also made by which the tenants of bishops' leases, upon consideration of the payment of a certain sum of money down, were enabled to convert the leases which they held for a number of years, with a power of renewal at certain fixed periods, into perpetual tenancies, paying the money which they thhaedrazirteh an edto a p i a d y iti f o o n r al the renewal in re ndw c a o l ns o i f de th ra e t ir ion lea o s f e t s h , etoagde vantages which they might be expected to derive from the permanency of their engagements. The whole of these sums. together were estimated by the late Earl Grey, in his place in this house, to amount to some where about 150,0001. a-year, and the following was the statement which he made of the charges,which were pro-' posed by the Government to be defrayed by that amount —Church ce , s, 60,0001 ; augmentation of poor living 4, 46,5001 ; building and repairing churches, 20.0001. ; glebe houses, 10,0001. ; making in all 136,5001. 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 t , 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 ted 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 ba4conceded 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 levy it or not, and to what amount they would choose to levy it, and levied exclu sively by Protestants, while it fell 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 honse 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 knew he 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 Chat les 11. There had been great change in the value, and 601110 houses which were valuable at that time bad become quite valueless since. Furthermore, a large pro portian‘was levied on proprietors of very small houses. And herel 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 refrain ing from collecting the tax from their poorer parishioners, and not put it merely on the ground of the difficulty and expense. "Theite were three objections urged against the tax. The first was the religious objection. Tte 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 pooresi 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 1854, 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. What was the result of the alteration of the law? Where, as there were - liable to the tax before 1854, 51,019 bou.es, there were exempted by operation of the ant, 30,873 ; and there remain liabl. ' 20,146 ; and of these 20,146 hou-es (I beg your lordship+ 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-siastical 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 'Aid 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 without violating property and spreading consi derable alarm among persons attached to the Church. If this i7roperty were taken away it would be asked what would remain inviolable." (Cheers.) In conformity with the principle adopted by all preceding Governments, the noble earl who was at Vas head of the Government in 1854 no t on ly re f use d t o 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 theclergy on the one band, and the liability of the tareayere on the other. (Cheers.) That 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 a lo n e, an d 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 tar, and ask your lord ships 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 succ e ssive G ove r n meats to abstain from so manifestly convenient a course as is now proposed. But I atn prepared to meet it also on the ground of expediency, however plausible the ex pediency 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 expellent 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 nebte friend proposes 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 atl the legitimate purposes to which it is applicable. 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-cese, 46,50001. a-year for the augmentation of small livings, 20,0001. a-year for the builtiinis 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 99,0001. 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 99,376 1 ., and the charges i m p ose d b y th e act upon that fund amount to 79,5261., leaving, therefore, a surplus of 19,850/. Let me remind your lordships of the purposes to which, ac cordinr 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 9,4641. The house would permit him 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 one-fifth 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 40,000/. was to be set apart. Of the average amount actually contributed to this purpose he could not speak with certainty—it 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 far 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 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was the name Maziere Brady, Chancellor of Ireland. That report set forth the difficulties with which the commissioners had had to con tend, and the dissatisfaction which had been occasioned by their refusing, as they were obliged to do, aid on many occasions, and they stated that these difficulties would be increased during the present year. And yet in the face of this report, bearing the signature of one of IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTEE,DA.Y.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. • The Earl of MALMESLURY gave notice that on Tuesday next he should present a petition from the offi cers of the Swiss Legion, complaining of the agreement under which they bad 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 Rathkeale 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 county 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 uuder 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 Badale 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 having 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 in 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 tion 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 under 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 Protestant communt ties, and the change effected by the act of James 11., deducing from the last-mentioned enactment the inference that even at that early period it was felt as a grievance by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. From that tune 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 passed, 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 for Ireland. Regarding the impost of church cess 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 t! an that against the church cess. For instance, the church coos 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 he introduced and carried in 1833, abolishing the church cess, omitted to deal with ministers' money also. It 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 73d 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 Church, 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 band, to provide for such ' objects. With such a clause in the act of Parliament, he confessed he could not understand how it was that ati nisters'money still existed. No doubt excellent technical reasons might be given, and in 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.rounri of the state of Ireland, and the necessity of removing the existing causes of religious d.ffe ences in to t country, while the noble earl contended, very etre 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 i the noble earl and his colleagues in support of that bill and against the church cess applied in an infinitely greater degree in favour of the present bill, and 1 against the teas of ministers' money. Some little time alter the passing of the act he 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 fur ward, which was rejected. Tne next step was the ap pointment of a committee of the House of Commons in 1848, and that committee unanimou-ly reported that the evils ot the tax were very great, but they differed as to the e xect mode in which a remedy should be applied. The apposition to the tax continued until at length, whet, the noble earl was at the head of the adminiairation, 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 noble earl advised their lordships now to oppose a ruea sure passed by the other house for the same purvse, he ought at least to exp'aio what was the nature of the bill which, had he remained in office, would have been sub mitted to Parliament, and in what respect it differed, at all events as regarded its general principle, from the one DOW under consideration. The noble earl was succeeded in office by his (Earl Granville's) noble 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 had entirely failed, The objects of that bill were to se cure a fixed income to the clergymen who weredependent upon this tax, instead of theprecarious and varying one, to relieve thetufrons the unpopularity which the mode of collecting the tax occa-ioned ; and to relieve the poor, or a very large proportion of them, who contributed to the impost, from their liability. That was, it absolved all who inhabited houses under 101,. a year in value, which would include probably three-fourths of the whole number. In return lor 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 satisfacticn to them to receive the re• dined income instead of the larger amount accompanied by the uncertainty and unpopularity which accompanied it. The relief to the poor householder bad been great, but not so great as was expected, inasmuch as the tniuis ters were not 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 tions should collect the rate, and pay over the amount to the civil paymaster, who was to band it over to the com missioners. In 7 of the corporations not only bad 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 collecting a rate which they believed to be ur.just, and to compel them to do so was no easy task for the Executive. An action had been brought against the corporation of Cork by the Govern ment, 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 back for two years more, so that it would be impossible to recover under 4 years. Ile asked whether, in the case of so small a sum, the Government bad, or had not, acted wisely in the course tbey had pursued ? He did not believe that the argument respecting the diminution of the property of the church would be urged by the men who had carried the Church Temp , ralities Act, nor could it be said that they were transferring it to a fund which was unable to bear it. He believed that, with a proper regard to economy, there would be no difficulty in providing for this extra charge on the ecclesiastical fund. He knew that at present there was not surplus, and he gave the noble earl the full be nefit of that fact; but when they remembered that this impost was the only remaining cause of exasperation left to the Catholics as against the Established Church, surely it was worth a little exertion, in the direction of economy, to remove it. Looking at the returns, he saw that the expense of clerks and secretaries was 23,0001., but then a good deal might be saved by consolidation. He had heard that the charge for sacramental elements was enormous, and there were many other points upon which a 'eduction might be made. Even in the contitu tion of the board itself he believed there was considerable room for economy. He bad now stated some of the rea sons which had induced the Government to propose this bill, and he ventured to put it to their lordships whether they would not consider the question with the view . to its practical results. If they adopted it, they would remove the only cause of irritation remaining in Ireland as re garded the Established Church ; while, if they rejected tt,they would, in a matter in which oily 12,0001. a-year was sent sta f te p hous i e nrlved, place themselves in collision with the other aorfltiahmio_egnotw. were ee pimmense, rac e t n ic s a e l . difficulties The;om of mi stshieonperres under th e act d ment did not di not receive the money ; the Govern. the other ha n d, the hesitate to put the law in force ; but, on expense was enormous, while the machinery was almost inoperative. As to bringing actions against corporationsof 13r li h t ad eo n li o p oo ro se pe o rt f y 6o a m nd mo in nr e i e t face of a majority w as perfectly ridiculous. Under all th e circumstances he earnestly appealed to their lordships to pass the bill, The Earl of DERBY rose and said—My lords, I must confess it is not without some reluctance that I now rise to offer my most unhesitating, uncompromising opposi tion to the bill which is now before us. I am ready to ad. mit upon the low ground of expediency upon w hi c h alone EVENING, JUNE 1 . 1857 the highest of their own officials in Ireland, the Govern ment now told the house that the funds in.the hands of the ecclesiastical commission'rs were sufficient, and that it was expedient t , ) abolish the minister,' money tex. As a question of amount he denied the c xproiisncy of the present geverernent, or of any goverroneet, 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 law. 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 al me, 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 3,000/ out of 12,0001., that the government had 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 wer,. in fact, an admis sion on the part of the Government of their inability to maintain the law. Thera 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 thestax Crown debts. Had the proper process 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 awls a thing known before as a public body coming before the represewative 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 ts 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 principle, 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. Wnile, therefore, he would willingly do all to put an end to even the most miserable fragment of agitation, be felt bound to pro pose that this bill be read a second time that day six months. With regard to the clergy, he would ndd that wh-ther 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 groat objects which were provided for in the Act of 1834, and which must be abandoned if their 1 irdships consented to deprive the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of a portion of their funds, as i; was pro posed 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 KELMOREsaid 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 Pretest ant clergy in Ireland with rare exceptions, if in feed 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 Wooli tion. Instead of promoting peace and good will, it would have the very contrary effect, as it would be re• gat ded by one party as a triumph, and by the other as a grievous wrong. The Earl of CORK sail 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 wi h 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 estaidished 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 DONOUGHIVIORE 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 ELLENBOROUGII said, that whether their lordships accepted or rejected the HA, it was clear that thugs could hardly be allowed to remain in their present position. The duty of Government was to esta blish good feeling and tranquility • 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 be believed would create a complete equi valent. At present there was a separate esteblishment for the church temporalit es, and his suggestion was that the business should be trailiferred to the Board of Works, by which means about 9,0001. a year might be saved. He found that the expense of the church tewporalities was 10 per cent., a very large amount, out all this might be saved by ransferring the business to the Board of Works, to which the clerical members of the commnsion might go also whenever their iaterests 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 E RS 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 had complained that the Govern meet proposed this bill when there was lit lo 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 sta',esinen to foresee when concessiou was inevitable, and to con cede before agitation had made its appearance. The noble earl objected to the principle of allowing people to make religious scruple the ground of resistant to a pecu niary impost. Agreed ; but practically this religious element would always enter into these matters, and must be attended to. He now came to a point which he hoped some member of the Government would be able to clear up. It had been asserted in the course of that debate that the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland give a sort of license to the corporations to resist this tax, and, as he was about to vote for the second reading, he hi: bound to protest against such a course on the part of the Li:rd- Lieutenant of Ireland He hoped, however, that this matter would. be satisfactorily explained by his noble friend who was about to reply. He asked what situation would the Government be in should thee- lordships un fortunately reject this bill. What would the position of the Government of Ireland be, if ultimately obliged to enforce the law, after having given license for its resist ance ? He hoped that his noble friend 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 in , b of regret in voting for the bill, and that wa , , that in doing so he should withdraw from the ecclesiastical 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, be should give his assent to the second reading. Earl GRANVILLE said that in proposing the second reading of the bill be had ventured an appeal to the noble earl opposite for some explanation on four points. Ho 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 tbat plan to the house. To that appeal the noble earl had not deigned to make the slightest reply. Next he bad ventur. d to aske 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 cess 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 ; In fact, they were pushed forward with the greatest vigour 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 g.. to the principle of that 73d clause. The Earl of DERBY referred the noble earl upon that subject to the noble lord theChiefJustiee, 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 biehopr , ce and church cess ; he would 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 3G —lOl Against—Present Proxies - 96 Majority The bill was then read a second time. POLICE BILL. This bill was read a second time. The house adjourned at, ten minutes to 11. ROUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) THE ORDNANCE SURVEY OF SCOTLAND, Oa the next vote (151,744/ ), for education and soden tific branches), • Sir D. NORREYS complained of the large rxoerKe the count, y wa.: put to for the survey of Scotland, which was so minute, as to walk out the site of every garden walk and pump upon the various estates. Such maps were perfectly unnecessary for any national purpo4,s, an/ were simply surveys of estates fur the advantage of the private landowners at the country's expense. Tae cub ject had been brought forward ora a former occasion, but Sir W. JOLLIFFE bad nothing to say against the scale, but he complained of the Government proceeding with the survey of the Highlands, while London and the popu!ons districts of England were left unsurveyed. Lord GIFFORD said, after a careful study of this question, he had come to the conclusion that the 25-inch -cale was a great mistake, and e,ight to be discontinued. It was of no use to any one but the Scotch landowners, and if they wanted it theyought to pay for it themselves, Mr. HENLEY ridiculed the modesty of the Scotch members, who, finding that the Irish had got a reap on a scale six time+ as laige as that of England, insisted that Scotland should be only lour 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 Dunc n had r ut forward. As the motion before the house was n tto redu,e the vote, but to give time for reconsideration, he would support it. Lord ELCHO at some length entered into a history of the whole que-tion. On the merits of the case he argued that the opponents of the w+a-ure 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 bet Neen the six and 25-inch scale was that of the difference be tween Brown Bess and the Enfia I rifle. Mr. LOCKE thought the 25-inch scale was not ob jectionable in itself, hut he pretested again .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 Scorch landlords, for whose benefit alone it could he 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 the house would not adapt the tuition of the hon. hart , and thus encourage the constant chauges in surveys, pulling down one year what they had bunt up in previous years. He trusted the house woulf affirm the decision to which the Parliament had come. The question was not an abstract one of scolds, but whether they would go on with the Scotch survey. (Hear, bear.) 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 c,st less than the Irish survey. The Irish survey cost 1,205,0001., whereas this would cost less tsan a million. No doubt the one-itch scale was the right one for a map, but this Scotch survey was not for a map, and by the anastatic process a reduction could be effected to any extent, and that was the plan which was adopted in Francs, whereas the hon. baronet had incorrectly stated that the maps et re not published. The Tithe and Enclosure C .minissioner3 hal repot ed that the one-inch scale was perfect y useless for their purposes. The hon. baronet had stated that this scale was recom mended by the Scotch landed proprietors ter their own purposes, but he forgot that on the committee which re cnninended the Irish scale there were fourteen Iri-h members, and so the Irish scale began. (Leughter.) The best answer he could 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 ju,t at this time time for the sake of a very doubtful saving of 50,0001. Tne hon. and learned gentleman concluded by quoting the testimony of Jeremy amthaw as to the importance of having a good eatioral map. Capt. BOLDER() addressed a few words to the house in favour of the six-inch scale, aed referred to the great service the Ordnance maps had rendered to eneineersand railway promoters during the season of the manna Mr. ELLICE said that the real question was whether Sc ,eland was , 0 have a mop or an estate -urvey. The sur vey apon the scale of 25 inches to the mile -eas altogether useless ; and be knew in one county (viz , Ros--shire) an hon. friend of his who represented the county had pur chased a map, the only one that ever had best) pur eha,ed, and had since stowed It away in a cellar, be cause from its size it was uselees. The hon, member alluded in particu'ar to the island of Harris, and other parts in the Highlands which were perfectly barr .n, 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 puldic money for so useless a purpose. Lord PAL.VIERSTON said that the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Mallow (Sir 11, 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 cony out the wishes of the house. But he would defy any govern went, or any m an , to discover from that debate what the opinion of the house was. One hon. gentleman was for a 25. inch survey, another for a 6-inch, and ai.other for a 2-inch survey and a 1-inch map. He requested hen. 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 Eeglanti 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 be satisfactory. With regard to publishing the '25 inch map, that was not intended, but it was well known that by the aid of science copies could be supplied without being engraved at a very moderate expense. It was a mistake to suppose that the island of Harris bad been surveyed on the 25-inch scale ; thas was not so. The 6'incla scale bad been adopted ; but though fir the other parte of Scotland the larger scale had been used, 'that was no more than bad 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 boase 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. For the recruction 172 Against it Majority 115,7441., the reduced vote, being put, Mr. BLACKBURN said equal ju-tice demanded that the vote for the English survey should be put on r he same footing as the Scotch, he should, therefore, propose that that sum be reduced by the sum of 24,4301., being the rence 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 290 Nebes ---268 Majority The amendment was therefore lost. Oo the motion that the house do adopt the resolution so amended, Lord ELCHO said the discussion h ad been betw een the merits of the 25 and 6-inch scales, and they had de cided that the 25-inch scale in Scotland sbou d not be continued. By the second vote, what bad been nega tived in Scotland had been affirmed in Eng'and. Ile congratulated the house on the consistency of their deci sion. Sr DENHAM NORREYS defended his conduct in connection with the assertions he bad made. that Eng land had Leen surveyed on a 6-inch scale. He held in his hand a map which justified the vote he and the house had given. Had ho believed that the 26•igoh scale was the Chancellor of the Erchequer got out of the difficulty , being carried on in England he should not have opposed by referring it to a committee of nine me nbere, of whom the vote for the Caine scale in Scotland. eiglit were Scotch. (A laugh.) Of course n o! hirig was Mr. HENLEY sad he believed the house intended done, and a it was a question involving an txpel,se o put down t)•e*2s_i,,l, ee e4 a„ e „„ we b as in God knows how many millions of money. he should move Scotland. The whole tenour iit !io• debase had proved that the survey of Scotlnnd, on the scale of 25 inches teat, to be the intention. He did not think there was to the mile, be discontinued ; that the survey of Scotland eey wish to lea . . Sao; anii dale] ter iy to England. be carried on, as it has been in Ireland, the northern (Heir, hear ) portion of England, and a large portion of Scotland, on Mr BLACKBURN de-claimed any intention to spite a scale of Gin. to the mile, and that it be engraved on Scotland in the amendment he ha made. that scale ; and that a map of Scotland, on a scale of lin. Lord PA L VIERSTON sail be believed the -;hr le to the mile, be also reduced from the Gin. map for en- county of Durham had been surveyed on the 25-inch graving and publication. The hon. gentleman stated he scale. But the intention o ftbe house, as he un :erstood was an Irishman, and he claimed justice for Ireland in it from the first vote, was that no further surveys the matter of that great outlay. He then entered into should be made oe that scale. (Hear, b-ar ) a long statement of facts arid figures with a view, as he Mr. E. ELLICE expressed his astoni , lament at the said, of showing that Scotch landoeners did not under- uncertainty which appeared to exist among the officers stand their own interests. (Laughter.) The ordnance of the survey, ae to the , cale on which the survey for map itself would be far too large to be of any practical the county of Durham had been conducted. So far from service, and the reduced map would be quite useless, be- th e 25 inch scale being too large, he had had the opinion cause it could not be depended upon. The Gin. map, of an able manager of the rnimral interests, that to he of however, was so perfect, that Sir John M'Neill, who was any value for the mineral districts the scale ought to be an eminent engineer, had stated to him only two days 11 feet to the mile. (Laughter.) It appeared that a previouly that he had laid out several hundred miles of 25-iech survey had been going on in Durham without railways by that map alone. In fact. it was so full that that house having any knowledge on the subj-ct. (gear.) engineers now never "chained out" or measured the Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask the Speaker a gees land they required to take. They depended upon the tion upon a matter of form. The house was now ceded Ordnance map alone, which in many cases was more ac- upon to affirm a vote supposed to have been arrived at curate than the large maps made by local surveyors. by seine committee, but there was uo committee then Every engineer examined before the committee Lad ad- sitting. mitted that the Gin. map was sufficient ferPailiarnentary The SPEAKER—The business before the house is purposes, with relation to tauding enters. As for the the consideration of the report of the Committee of Sur " geological" reasons that had been given for the 25in. ply, and what the house has done has been to amend a survey, Sir R. Murchison had altogether repudiated them. resolution which has been passed by that committee. If they desir d to connect a transfer with a map they The question, therefore, which I have to put to the must have an index, and it would be impossible to index house is that this house agrees with the resolution of a 25 inch map. It was both too large and too the committee as it has now been amended. small. It was a map they could not use for registration. The question was then put and agreed to. It was impossible to have a standard map for the regis- The remaining votes included in the report were also tration of property. It was equally impresible to frame agreed to. a map that was perfect for all purposes. Would they in- The Ecclesiastical Corporations Bli and the Ecclesi- . cur an enormous expense merely to give the Scotch gen- astical Commission Bill were, after a short conversation, tlerriers plans of their estates ? He prayed the house to read a second time, with a view of being referred to a intercept this monstrous survey. He had taken much select committee pains to make himself master of the subject, and he had TURNPIKE TRUSTS .ARRANGEMENT BILL. given the house his conclusions. He should move that the This bill went through eoruinittee, whole of the survey estimate should be struck out INSURANCE OF LIVES (ABATEMENT OF IN (36,0000, in order to drive the Government into making COME TAX) CONTINUANCE BILL, a supplemental set mate. This bill went through committee. Lord DUNCAN entered into a history of the changes MARRIED WOMEN'S REVERSIONARY INTE that had taken place in the Ordnance survey, defended REST BILL the 25-inch survey as best adapted for the purposes of The house went into committee on this bill. Scotland, as little, if at all, more expensive than if done Mr. DOBBS proposed an amendment in clause Ito on the smaller scale, and as capable of being reduced to the ef fec t of restrictin g the p ower of disposition given a smaller scale, while the smaller scale could not be by the act to married women of the personal property raised. So much was this the case that a large portion of after marriage. England bad been obliged to be re-surveyed, as it was Mr. MALINS objected to the amendment, as it would first began on too small a scale. As a further reason for dastry the value of the bill altogether. retaining the present arrangement, he added that a great The amendment was negatived without a division. portion of the cultivated districts in Scotland was al- The bill, after some amendments, passed through ready finished, and that considerable loss had been sus- committee. tamed by the frequent changes that had taken place in The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the the matter. He hoped therefore, the house would now house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. settle the question once for all. 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 slo►v demand at fully 2s to 38 per qr. higher prices, the best samples of red wheat realising 655. Of oats and be.ll , few ou offer, at about last week's rates. Nothing doing in barley and pew. _ Prices :-- - Wheat, red, 54s Od. to 65s Od; new, —s to ; white, 643 to 67s Od , extra, 695. Barley, 403 Od to 47s 01. oa,l,- 203 to 303. Peas, 40 to 44s Od. Beans, 44s Od to 48s Od per qr. NEWAIIii—JtiNn 17. A fair attendance and a good supply of grain, Wheat met a ready sale, and was 2s in advance. Other ariici° 6 as before. Wheat, white 63s to 665, red 63s to 70s; barley, malting 44s to 483, grinding 36s to 38s; oats, 24st. 32. t to 344, 224 t 2G3 to 28s ; beans, 4. , s to 523 ; malt, 76s to 80s ; peas, 4 49 to 463; tares, 443 to 48s per qr. LOUTH—JUNE 17. We had a moderate supply of grain at to-day's mar . ket, and a good attendance. Wheat met a very inactive demand at 2s to 3s advance. Nothing doing in barley. Other kind , ' at Irevious rates. Wheat, 603 to his ; extra, 638; barley 41s to 445; 0 10 23s to 25s ; beans, 43s to 163. MANCHESTER-JUNE 18. An average attendance at our market to-day, and there was a 'under tte demand kr wheat, at an advance of 2s to 3s per qr. o❑ English, and 2d to 3.1 per 701 b on American• Flour iu some instances held for an advance of 2s per sack on this day se'nnight, but a slow sale. Oats and oatmeal at previous rates. English beans rather higher. GLASGOW-JUNE IY. At this day's market the high pretensions of holder rather checked business. Wheat ficl dearer, but a slovt sale at the a iyanc,?. Red American made 32s and Danish 299. Barley of tine quality a retail sale at firmer prices. Beans and peas at late rates. Oats, trade quiet. Oat meal fetches full prices. Indian corn, 22s fid for mixed .-- 2313 for yellow. EDINBURGH GRAIN.-JuNE 17. Tho supply of grain of all kinds to-day was large, and sales dull for all kinds of grain, and cheaper. Wheat, on the top, is Cd up, and on the average Os 3d down. Barley, Os 6d up on the top, and Os 5d down on the average. Oats on the top is 6.i down, and on the average Os 5,1 down. Beans on the top 2s down, and on the average is 6d down. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat £2 6 10 11-12ths. Do. new -12th. Barley Oats 1 11 3 6-12ths. Beans -12ths. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 9 0U7 qrs sold 1715 qrs Barley 173 qrs sold 145 qrs Oats 126 qrs sold 805 , irs 2 Beans l2O qrs sold 94 gra DERBY SMITHFIELD.—JUNE 16. There was a good supply of fat beasts to-day, with a fft it attendance of buyers. The demand flat, and the greater part left uncoil. The supply of sheep was very larrd and fully maintaining former prices. Lambs a gl,?, e supply. Fat awl store calves a full aver age num b e r. l et pigs more plentiful. The following were the quotations ;—Beef, Td to 7ii! mutton, 7(1 to Sd ; lamb, —d to cd ; veal, 61d tc 7d P e ° ; lb. ; pigs, lls 0.1 to 118 6d per score; rough f a t, 5s a t tu Li per 141 b.; hides, 4id to 6,d per lb ; calf-skins, 4A to 6 i per lb. A IWRISTISICUSYT. I—SIGHT AND HEARING. —SPECTACLES: 1 POWERFUL TELESCOPES.— OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTI I GLASSES.—MOSSFS. S. and G. opticians, Ai be, neve --treet, Piccadilly. 01 tseeve—opposite the York Note' , W By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent for valuable and extraordinary ins rovements in the most powerful and litly liaut T lescopes, Camp, ttia.ecourse, opera, au. Perspect ive GI sees, to know the distances. These teitiscoperi losse-° such Jxtraordivary power that smile, three and a-half 'lich ee ' with an extra eye-p eee will show distinetl Jupiter's rnoons! haturn's ring, and she double +tars ; with the same t.itlesce - ' can be seen a i e. sun's countenan,e three-anit-a-half miles ills: tent, •nu an object from 16 to 20 miles Fur the waii-testo pocket, an are of 'ar. cr and R sizes, with inc easing s accordingly. The Royal Exhibition, 1851 —A vai n : able ewly-inveute very small pow. rful Waistcoat Pock" Glas, the size of a walnut, by which a person can be sea l and known one and a half mile distant. they an wei evert t airpo.e on the race-course, and at the Of:era Hauses• C,untry scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles* They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting' to sportstee ge it'arneit, g , mek-epers, i ndt ct ists. Oper_ Camp, Perspect ve, and R t ioi.ours biasses, with wouderfil" powers. —luyalu ble preserving Spectacle Lenses or the 4r...est ,ianspar?ut po wer Th e great +advantage der ived from this inveutum, is, that vision impaired becomes P served and stre ug tl ene d , an d very aget persons are enabl e ' to employ their sight at the most minute occupation" - can see with th ese l enses o f a much less magnify ing Pe / L e ,, —and they do not requ i re th e f requen t c h ange , to dangerous effects of further powerful assistance Persl i f, can be suited at the mot remote part of the world by Fen a iu ()tie of the glasses out of thei r s p ec t c ! es i n a l e tter, 1113 , stating the dist nee from the eye th e y can rea d :ma ll pile' with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles 1)f sta ing their age. Deafness.—New Dis iv. r y.—T!Je genie Vibrator, an extra rdiiarily powerful, smal newly' invented ;nstrument fee deafnes s , e nti re ly cliff rent front others, surpasses anythik g of the kind that ',a , heen, or po_, baby ever can be i rodiiced. Being of the same colour e' r tile skin, is not perelatibl,.. It enables deaf persons to he a t die inetly at church and at l üblic assemt tl.e , *; the uni leasan sensation f singing noises in the ears is entirely . emo. o4 ' and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be flesite‘_ ," —34, a e marl e• stree t , Piccadilly.—Observe—opposite the York Hotel. W BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 18th inst., at 33, Canonbnry-squ ar e, the wife Of Lindsay Walters. On the 13th inst., at 45, Charlwood-street, Pimlico, t be wife of Commander David Sp dn, R.N. OF A DACGUT&R. On the 17th inst., at 111, Glooester-place, PortoolY square, th,, lady of Captain N. Chichester, 7th D ra goo o Guards. On the 13th inst., at 25, Blomfield-road, hlaida-hid, the wife of F. S. Carpenter, Esq. MAItitIED, On the 18th inst., at St. Marylebone parish church, rr: derick Willis Farrer , of 3, Glocester-terr a ee, Regent park, to Mary, e ldest d 'tighter of George Richmond, Esq'' of 10, York.-street, Portman-square. On the 17th inst., at the Church of St. Luke, Chelsesl Wtn. Wood Pitcher, Esq., of St. Margaret's near Dov° l.l Kent, to Louisa Maria, eldest (laughter of William 84 1 E sq ., of Holles-place, Brompton. DIED. On the 17th inst., at Twickenham, Robert Enscoo, E i4 " aged 84. On the 17th i ns t ., suddenly, Josephine, wife of Ali o / Bowness, 7, LiAle Britain, and the youn g est daughter t. " John D awson, Esq of Kendal and Witherslack, " morelaud. • Of Ou the 17th i ns t., a t M o ff a tt, N. 8., B ea t r i ce , wif° Major - General Dulgeon. Ou tha 16 t h i ns t., a t Edinburgh, Ri c h ar d, on ly sou 01 Commander R. B. Creyke, R.N., aged 13. Ou the 15th iuxt., at Mildinay-park, Stoke Newingt°ll' Win. Langstaff, Esq., aged 69. NW' On the 15th lust , at Westbourne-park-terrace, gar, Abu road. Arthur, youngest surviving son of Richard Au 46, Conduit-street, Hanover-square, aged 26. „ 0 . On the 15th inst., at Puekuaw, bliss 6uphia Reb er Mathews, late cf Southampton, I,ged 54. iNDON : Printed and Published by MUIIDO Y 01 11461 N of so.. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun o:lice, 11,, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, of Middlesex, Friday, June 19, 1857. in the coula ~..-_- ITON Al . with teeter !tile. E' kOrning Pert kills may be Polr zraehie-I dad at the pri 110YA1 • CASI ten of the La of Forty of th u .oulcourt 441 1 , Lattedrs R 0 Y M. J L' o t l n3encing M adame Rad 'Maine Carl strand Miss Herr Relcbar Voliductors 41klission Is. lIRSI Chan( 14CREL GO 'William Good Of No. 4, Tyr i?olvrilbroker, by their Solic, Lbeir debts at Zed, No. n •44ereof th ey lidd Decree. Monday, ti 2 00 n. at the a upon the Mail Dated this f wig with 1 Nement as 1 Ake charge of Ire kept. A is at present ii titon.—Addrt .1 1 0 - ill ::tou Erebusro: :14 eti:2,oe4 , S .ate T si onintr A ziei L rmit,tr S treet), with a f *hooting, mine , I P 7II, Wear, & , all the besi London, at ti ----- 14 ADY The e1 "i011 that Part, Lady I dne to the 1C der own cost (1 4 : P 1 by the which 1 t uY the Amer j4: BY' do r t formerckl); Bl t Roderic Murchison, sident Roy' • PraphicalS PR . s . R ear-Admlx:a . team fort I n . s . ..'.. 14 0 rd Wrot President Society . • ' l . General .. .s. Treasurer, Society .... *". Brown, I V. P. L. S. . ' 4 l)tain Coll Oswald in Command , Tindal, N