§ House in Committee of Supply.
§ (1.) 902,821l., Works, Buildings, &c. Agreed to.
§ (2.) 154,368l., Scientific Branch.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to the item for the cost of the Royal Military Academy. He wished hon. Members to contrast it with Sandhurst, where part of the expense was defrayed by the young men themselves, and where a preference was given to the sons of officers, while at Woolwich and Carshalton, where 143 the establishment was at the public cost, the young men were appointed by the exercise of the patronage of the Master General, and a preference was not given to the sons of officers, but rather the reverse, and as the young men educated there were principally the sons of persons of property, they ought not to be supported at the public cost.
said, that it should be remembered that Sandhurst was a self-supporting institution; but, at the same time, he knew that, in the distribution of the patronage of the Master General in appointments at Woolwich, preference was given to the sons of officers in the same manner as at Sandhurst.
§ MR. MONSELL
said, the subject of Carshalton school was under the consideration of the Master General, but with a different view to that proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), for it was felt that it was not proper that a public department should expend 4,000l., and receive 6,000l., which was the case at Carshalton. The sons of officers paid less at Woolwich than other persons. The sum paid by the sons of civilians was 125l. a year, while those of officers paid 80l., 70., and 60l., according to the different ranks of their fathers, and orphans of officers only paid 20l. a year. The academy at Woolwich had paid into the Exchequer last year 17,158l., and the expenses of the establishment were only 26,115l.
said, that when Carshalton school was first established, Colonel Anson, who was then in that House, assured him that, as its object was to enable parents who wished to send their sons into the Army to obtain for them a proper preparatory military education—which there was then great difficulty in doing—though there might be a little outlay necessary at first, it would in time become self-supporting. He had always advocated every measure which could tend to render the Army less expensive to those who entered it. At present it was almost impossible for officers to live in the Army simply on their own resources; and the consequence was, that many of those who really desired to make the Army their profession, and who were the most likely to become distinguished officers, were obliged to sell out.
§ MR. MONSELL
said, that the pledge given by the Ordnance would probably be redeemed, for Carshalton had yielded this year 1,800l. more than in the preceding years, and the subject of its being made 144 more efficient was under consideration. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), they did not apply to the artillery, where most of the officers did live on their pay.
said, he meant to have drawn a comparison in that respect between the artillery, the most valuable branch of the service, and the rest of the Army, and he wished to see the whole Army, both cavalry and infantry, put on the same footing in that respect as the artillery.
said, he concurred entirely in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose respecting the necessity of reducing the expenses of officers in the Army. He thought it was extremely prejudicial to the interests of the Army to have young men of fortune coming in, simply with the idea of spending a few years pleasantly as officers, increasing the extravagance of the corps, and standing in the way of those men who made the Army their profession.
§ MR. MONSELL
said, the subject was still under consideration by the Treasury, but no decision had yet been come to.
hoped that the country would not be involved in a large additional expenditure on the mere decision of the Treasury, without submitting the subject to the consideration of the House. He had been informed that the simple change from the one-inch to the six-inch scale would cost 500,000l. for Scotland alone. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons, both by geologists and civil engineers, showed that the six-inch scale was useless for very many purposes.
§ MR. J. WILSON
said, he must explain that there had been some doubt as to the scale on which the survey should be made, and the opinions of the most competent persons had been taken, and the conclusion they had come to was, that the large scale would be most desirable. With regard to the expenditure, before any further steps as to the making of the survey on a large scale were taken, the whole question of expense of the survey would be taken into consideration. The only instance in which they had assented to the large scale was in Glasgow, and they had done so only on condition that whatever arrangement was made with regard to the rest of Scotland should apply to Glasgow.
said, he must complain that no direct answer had been given to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Seymour). They had expended between 700,000l. and 800,000l. in this survey, and it was not precisely understood upon what principle they were proceeding, in consequence of the want of more general superintending authority.
SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he thought they ought to have an assurance that no money would be expended on the survey without the sanction of the House.
said, he thought that the survey of a plain surface, such as moors and even perhaps mountains where there were no details to be put in, would not be more expensive on a large scale than on a small one; while, on the other hand, it was of great advantage to secure a uniform survey. If any of the towns desired a survey on a still larger scale, they ought to be called on to bear a share in the expense.
§ MR. SMOLLETT
said, he wished to know how much money had been expended in the survey of Scotland during the last and preceding years. He believed some of the money granted in previous years had not been entirely expended, and he wanted to know whether it could be appropriated to other parts of the survey, or whether it would be applied exclusively to Scotland?
§ MR. MONSELL
said, he would state the progress that had been made in the last year on the six-inch scale. The number of square miles completed in England was 689, in Scotland 796, and in Ireland 551. Of the one-inch map there had been completed twelve miles in England, ten in Scotland, and thirty-two in Ireland. He would acknowledge at once that with regard to continuous progress the thing was not in a satisfactory state, because the scale in which the survey was to be carried on had not been decided. Not nearly so much had been done within the year as would have been done if that had been decided upon.
said, they had laid out between 700,000l. and 800,000l., and they were now told that the department did not know the work they had to do. That arose from the want of a single authority from whom the department might receive orders. In the sum of 122,000l. he observed that there was 2,000l. for engraving maps of large towns, 2,000l. for en- 146 graving maps of towns in Ireland; and another 1,000l. for maps.
§ MR. MONSELL
said, the department was perfectly aware from whom they were to receive orders. They were to receive orders from the Treasury. What he stated was, that they had not received those orders, and therefore the work had not gone on in a satisfactory way. With regard to the sale of maps, they had received this year 5,212l. for maps.
§ MR. SMOLLETT
said, what he wished to know was, how much of the money voted last year had been expended in Scotland?
said, he was astonished to find that the Ordnance had for the last two years been carrying on the survey, and expending a grant of 100,000l. without any distinct understanding on what scale it was actually to be completed. He hoped that the Treasury would give some assurance that they would lose no time in coming to a decision.
§ MR. J. WILSON
said, the question he had been asked was, whether they were to depart from the scale adopted two years ago, without coming down and asking the sanction of the House before they adopted a plan that would be more expensive to the country. He had stated that it was not intended to extend the six-inch scale to 24 to 25½, without submitting the proposition to the House. His noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had also asked whether it was intended to go from six inches to one inch, and he had said there was no intention of doing so. What was in contemplation was, to go from six inches to a larger scale, but nothing would be done until the House had given its opinion upon the subject. The question would be decided at an early moment, and before the present Session had terminated.
§ MR. MONSELL
said, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, the sum of 35,000l. had been expended last year upon the survey of Scotland, and 50,000l. would be expended this year.
§ MR. V. SCULLY
said, he would suggest the appointment of a Select Committee to determine the best scale. The six-inch survey had been adopted in Ireland, and they were the best maps in Europe, and the most perfect of their kind.
§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, that in Ireland the survey had been upon a six-inch scale, and the map of Ireland, as now completed, formed one of the most perfect maps in Europe. He believed a 25-inch 147 scale would create nothing but confusion and expense, and he wished to know what scale would be adopted in the survey of Scotland?
said, that, visiting the Isle of Lewis some time ago, he found that for two years a captain of Engineers and a detachment of Sappers and Miners had been engaged in contouring the island of Lewis, in Scotland—an island which was merely a vast bog, and fit for nothing but wild sheep. He would also remark, that Mr. Keith Johnstone, of Edinburgh, had informed him that he would undertake to publish the Ordnance maps at one-third the expense at present incurred. He therefore suggested that the whole question should go before a Committee upstairs, and that their recommendations should be adopted by the Board of Ordnance.
§ MR. MONSELL
, in answer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), said, the proprietor of the island of Lewis had contributed towards the expense of the survey of that island.
said, he was aware that the proprietor had contributed a sum of 1,500l.; but he should like to know what further sum had been expended in a survey which was neither of use to the proprietor nor to the inhabitants?
§ MR. BELLEW
said, he wished to know if it was correct that the Ordnance maps in Ireland were much more expensive than those in England; and, if that statement was correct, he desired to know the reason why it was so?
§ Vote agreed to; as was also
§ (3.) 171,446l., Non-effective Services. House resumed.