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 know 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 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 certaintpses: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 difficulties
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 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. 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 when there was little 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 concession 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 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 in the course of that
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 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 their 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 licecse for its resist-
ance T 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
ing of regret in voting for the bill, and that wag, 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,
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 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 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, & Market; Manefield & Worksop Road;
S aropshire Union Railways and Canal, 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.