Sitting of 18 June 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Banffshire, v. The Earl of Fife, Manor of Hempholme.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Lunatics (Scotland); Weights and Measures; Sites for Workhouses.
2° Ecclesiastical Corporations; Ecclesiastical Commission, &c.; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Charitable Uses.

COMMUNICATION WITH IRELAND— ORDNANCE MAPS—QUESTIONS.
MR. REPTONsaid, he would beg to ask what arrangements have been made by the Government for improving the communication between London and Dublin?
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would also beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the Ordnance Maps of Dublin will be furnished to the public?
MR. WILSONsaid, in answer to the first question, he was sorry to say that the Government was still without any communication from the united Companies with whom the arrangements were to be made, and he was unable to give any further information at present. In answer to the second question, he had to say that if it was repeated on Monday he would state the progress which had been made with the Ordnance survey of the United Kingdom.

LUNACY BILL (SCOTLAND)—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to ask the Lord Advocate if it is his intention to make any provision in his Lunacy Bill for the proper management and training of weak or imbecile children.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that his hon. Friend on the bringing up of the Lunacy Bill that night, would see what he proposed to do. He did not consider that it would be proper or necessary to introduce such a provision into a general measure.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the passing of the Savings Banks Bill during the present Session, he would be willing to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee next year, to inquire into and consider the whole state of the law relating to savings banks, with a view to its consolidation and amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to the question of my noble Friend, I have to state that, in the event of the Savings Banks Bill becoming law during the present Session, I shall be prepared next Session to assent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the general state of the law on the subject of savings banks, the constitution of savings banks, the financial question raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Willoughby), and also whether the entire Statutes relating to savings banks may not be consolidated.
MR. HADFIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to persevere with his Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I intend certainly to proceed with the Bill in this present Session, but I shall move to postpone the Order, which stands for Monday, until Thursday next.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: That will be rather an early day to enable the governing bodies of the different savings banks to meet and consider the question in the interval.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My wish is to proceed with the Bill upon the earliest possible day. There is no prospect of my being able to proceed with it on Monday, and I shall there fore move to postpone the order till Thursday.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Report of Supply (Army Estimates) brought up.
  First Resolution read, 2°.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to portions of the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Committee and the Chelsea Commission, showing the necessity of defining the responsibility and duties of the various departments. He had no doubt the House would affirm the
  2014
  Resolution agreed to in Committee of Supply, and freely vote every shilling requisite for the expenses of the various departments of the army; but he felt it his duty to warn the House that unless considerable alterations were made in the organization of those departments, and in the method of conducting their business, the sums now voted would not insure efficiency, and that if war were to break out to-morrow disasters might again occur similar to those which disgraced our military system at the commencement of the campaign in the Crimea. It was not only the right, therefore, but the duty of the House to inquire into the due administration of the expenditure of the army. It might appear presumptuous that a person like himself, without experience, should venture to bring forward a military question in the presence of so many distinguished officers who were far better qualified to deal with it; but the subject to which he wished to call attention had less reference to the execution of military duties than to the organizations of those departments on which the army depended for its supplies, and any failure of which must at once weaken its efficiency. He also felt warranted in the course he was now adopting by the knowledge he had acquired of the regulations of those departments while serving on the Sebastopol Committee and the Chelsea Commission, before which the calamities that had befallen our army during the late war were fully investigated. In alluding to these inquiries nothing was further from his intention than to say a single syllable which could by possibility raise any discussion as to the opinions expressed by the witnesses examined before those tribunals on the conduct of individuals. Whatever differences there might have been on other matter, on one point there was perfect unanimity among those who carried on these investigations—namely, that the main cause of the misfortunes of our army was the want of proper organization of the departments. He would not trouble the House by reading the evidence, but would content himself with briefly quoting the opinions arrived at from that evidence. The Report of the Sebastopol Committee, which was drawn up by the Duke of Somerset, who had great experience on this subject, and—than whom no man could have been found more competent for the task—contained this passage—
  "No measures were taken for rendering effective

  2015
  the offices on whose vigorous administration the success of all operations and the maintenance of the army depend."
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, in No. 15 of his draught Resolution, submitted to the Committee, stated—
  "Much of delay, confusion, and inefficiency has resulted from the faulty distribution of power among the different departments of the public service, and from the want of certainty and precision as to the precise nature and extent of the separate authority of each."
  He added—
  "The intricacy and confusion that prevail in every part of the business of the public departments are of themselves sufficient to account for the failures and disasters that have occurred in the proceedings of all of them."
  The draft of the Resolution, which was drawn up by himself, he should not quote, but he would only say that in that opinion he fully concurred. The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) who had himself filled the office of Secretary for War, and on whose head was visited most unjustly the censure due to departments which were not then under his control, in answer to question 15,100, page 80, third Report of the Sebastopol Committee, stated:—
  "I am certain, in order to enable any Secretary of State for War satisfactorily to himself and to the public to carry out his duties, there must be very material changes in all the war departments."
  It might be said that all these complaints referred to bygone times, that great changes had since taken place, and that every desired improvement had been effected by placing these departments under the immediate control of the Secretary for War; while he had no doubt that the great improvement which took place in the condition of our army in the Crimea, at the close of the campaign, would be adduced as additional evidence of an alteration having taken place in our military organization. He was not, however, convinced that the army was safe from a recurrence of such calamities as those by which it had lately been visited. We went from one extreme to the other; for whereas, at the beginning of the war our troops were not duly supplied with the necessaries of life, and were consequently exposed to the severest privation and hardship, so afterwards, at a cost and by the aid of means which could never be resorted to again, they were overwhelmed with articles forming no part of the soldier's ordinary equipment, and which must have seriously impeded their movements if they had had to take the field, and three-fourths of which, had the army been compelled to make a
  2016
  single day's march, they would have been compelled to leave behind. No comparison could be made between the ordinary condition of an army in the field and one that was stationary, as was ours in the Crimea. A railroad and barracks in the field (which the huts were), an Army Working Corps, and the employment of a large staff of civilians at a much higher rate of pay than the fighting men, are all exceptions to a system; and although he gave the greatest possible credit to those who, by the adoption of these means, restored the efficiency of the army, still it is no precedent for the future, and an army taking the field must be dependent on the efficiency of the establishments whose business it is to supply its wants; and he was persuaded the great fault of our military system was the practice of making one department dependent upon another for the execution of duties for which it was responsible. This remark strongly applied to the Quartermaster General's department. The House would, perhaps, permit him to read a short extract from the Report of the Chelsea Commission, drawn up by an officer who had served with distinction in the Quartermaster Generals' department in the Peninsular war, where the arrangements showed the power of the master mind who was at that period at the head of the British army. The Report having expressed an opinion as to the individual conduct of each officer in the Quartermaster General's department in the Crimea, proceeded—
  "That their endeavours often failed in their object cannot fairly be matter of charge against a department which, although ostensibly responsible for the performace of duties of the very first importance to an army in the field, is yet left unprovided with any means at its disposal of carrying out its own arrangements, and thus becomes entirely dependent on the precarious aid of other departments, which in this particular service were over-taxed far beyond their strength and resources. Formerly the Quartermaster General's department was on a very different footing in this respet. The greater part of a staff corps of infantry, composed entirely of artificers, and commanded by officers especially trained or selected with a view to staff employment, was attached to the Quartermaster General's department, and its services were at all times available for the performance of duties which could not otherwise be provided for."
  Now, in his evidence, General Airey said—
  "The Quartermaster General's department consists entirely of officers, and is not supplied with workmen or artificers of any description, and has no right or power to make purchases, or to enter into any pecuniary engagements of any kind. It is only by requisitions that the department

  2017
  can operate. It will be seen, therefore, that so far as the duties of the Quartermaster General are connected wich the execution of army works, he, having no means of executing them in his own dapartment, can actually discharge himself of all apparent responsibility by the judicious use of a few sheets of paper."
  He added—
  "Although it were well known to him that the work could not really be executed, he might repose in the thought that his office contained paper proofs of his having done his duty."
  In justice to Sir R. Airey he (General Peel) must add that he stated—
  "It was not thus I performed my duty. I never covered myself by signing requisitions being more or less in the councils of other departments. I did not mock them by making demands which I knew they were incapable of meeting."
  The Quartermaster General's department was responsible for the supply of the stores, and was also ostensibly responsible for the conveyance and the delivery of the clothing. But what means were at its disposal for the performance of these functions? On this point the Quartermaster General, in his evidence, said—
  "The Quartermaster General's department has no stores, no storehouses, no issuers, no means of land transport; none, in fact, of the machinery necessary for receiving stores or keeping them, or for transporting them or for delivering them to the men."
  He (General Peel) believed that that was the present state of the Quartermaster General's department. The only means of acting the department had was still by requisition. Now, the evidence given by Dr. Smith regarding the system of acting by requisition in the Medical department was deserving of particular attention. Dr. Smith said that at the breaking out of the war he was called upon by the Commander in Chief to supply the army with everything requisite in the Medical department, and he stated that having decided on the proper quantity, he had to provide the medicines and surgical instruments himself, and then to make a requisition to the Ordnance for the utensils, furniture, &c. A requisition had also to be sent to the Admiralty for the medical comforts, such as wine, sago, arrowroot, &c.; but he had no means of knowing whether his requisitions had been complied with. He could only communicate with the Ordnance and the Admiralty through the Commander in Chief. In his examination Dr. Smith, in answer to questions, stated—
  "'Was any bill of lading sent to you?' 'No; I must mention that I was not considered to have the slightest power or control over the shipping, all that I had to do was to forward my requisitions,
  2018
  and they took everything out of my hand; it was not considered by me either decorous or proper to interfere further. I did so, notwithstanding: every two or three days I sent a man down to know what progress had been made.' 'To whom did you apply to supply the medical comforts, such as wine, and sago and arrowroot?' 'At the time it was very difficult to know whom I ought to apply to; the regulation, as far as regarded me, was that I must address myself on every subject to the Commander in Chief. I was not allowed the right of corresponding directly with every department; I had to go to the Commander in Chief, the Commander in Chief applied to the Board of Ordnance, the Board of Ordnance applied to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty, up to August, furnished the medical comforts.'"
  Thus the Board of Ordnance, when it received such a requisition, was bound to put itself into communication with the Admiralty before it could comply with it, and oven after they had complied with the requisition with which they were concerned, it was necessary to have another requisition to the Admiralty for transport service. So that it is left at last a matter of surprise, not that confusion arose, but that by any chance it was avoided. He could go on quoting the evidence of witness after witness to prove that the different military departments were in a state of deplorable confusion at the time of the late war, but he thought he had stated sufficient to show that, at all events, there did exist a want of such definite regulations as were necessary to secure the efficient operation of all those departments, and to make them act as one machine. He thought the House had a perfect right to ask what alteration had been made in the action of these departments (especially the Ordnance, the Commissariat, and all those departments, in fact, by which the wants of the army were supplied) by placing them under the immediate control of the Secretary for War. He had heard, but he knew not what amount of credit ought to attach to the statement, that so far from the late Order in Council having contributed despatch in the communications between the different military departments, communications which previously received official answers in three days were now not answered before the lapse of ten days. In making these observations he was actuated by the most friendly disposition towards the heads of these departments. He was convinced that they desired nothing so much as the authoritative laying down of clear and definite rules as to their duties and responsibilities. In asking for the issue of those rules, he asked for no more than the noble Lord at

  2019
  the head of the War Department himself, admitted in a speech delivered by him in May, 1855, to be necessary. The noble Lord on that occasion said he had not the smallest objection to lay before Parliament such express and definite regulations as might be considered necessary for the efficient control of the various military departments; and, accordingly, on the 6th of June last year there was laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament an Order in Council, which to a certain degree did define the duties of a certain number of officers; but it was cancelled by an Order of Council of the 2nd February of this year, which has not been laid before Parliament, which merely stated the amount of the salaries attached to the different offices, but gave no definition of the duties. He did not at all question the ability or the desire of the noble Lord at the head of the War Department to organize the various military departments. In fact, he knew no person who was better qualified than that noble Lord to frame, in conjunction with his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, a code of regulations for their guidance. But his (General Peel's) object in calling the attention of the House and the Government to the subject at the present moment was to urge the danger of postponing the issue of such regulations until the breaking out of another war, It was far better to institute an inquiry as to the best means of averting a calamity than to make inquiries about it after it bad occurred. The regulations winch he desired to see issued ought to be well considered, founded upon the evidence of competent witnesses, and of a permanent character. They ought not to be subject to the capricious alterations of successive Secretaries at War, who might or might not be competent to deal with such subjects. They ought to be framed, in the first instance, by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, and then submitted for approval to the Government and Crown. After they had been so approved, copies of them ought to be furnished to all the military departments for their guidance. He had said nothing as to the nature of those regulations, or of the alterations that might be necessary in the duties of the different departments, for he felt that his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, both of whom had so admirably filled the office of
  2020
  Secretary for War, might think it altogether impertinent in him to express any opinion as to the changes that might be desirable. He hoped, however, that those right hon. Gentlemen would express on the present occasion their opinions as to the necessity of regulations with regard to the duties and responsibilities of the military departments; but, above all, he desired that they should say what were their opinions as to the power and responsibilities of the Secretary for War being clearly defined. The Duke of Newcastle, in his exanimation before the Sebastopol Committee, stated that the demarcation between the power of the Secretary for War and Commander in Chief were indefinitely inconvenient, and although he (General Peel) considered that the evidence afterwards given by Viscount Hardinge and a speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary for War in the House of Lords, showed pretty clearly what the relative positions and duties of the two officers are, yet he thought that something more definite was needed for the proper regulation of the departments than mere opinions expressed in evidence before Committees or in speeches in the House of Lords. He hoped that he had succeeded in impressing the House with the necessity of a clear definition of the regulations and responsibilities of these departments, and was convinced that an assurance from the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the War Department should be guided by some fixed and definite plan, and that, to use the words lately used by the noble Lord, we should not, in the event of another war, be left "wandering in the mazes of error" would afford the greatest satisfaction.
  MR. ELLICE (Coventry)said, he could not refuse to answer the appeal of the hon. and gallant Officer. He entirely concurred in all the opinions which he had just expressed. With him he was a member of the Sebastopol Committee before which abundant evidence was given of the utter confusion in all these departments at the beginning of the last war. They were then, in fact, in greater confusion than they had been for some time previously. The Board of Ordnance, which used to be one of the most efficient branches of the public departments, happened then to be in a most inefficient state, and, in fact, in a state of utter disorganisation; and it never surprised him that the noble Duke who then undertook the office of Secretary for War found that it was almost impossible

  2021
  to carry on efficiently any communication with the different departments. He (Mr. Ellice, sen.) understood that his noble Friend the present Secretary for War had arranged a plan for the improved organization of the different military departments, but he thought that a more detailed statement of that organization should be laid before the House. It was clear that some uncertainty still prevailed as to the limits of the powers of the Secretary for War and Commander in Chief, for, to take one instance—when his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief was examined before the Commission now sitting, (and without improperly disclosing any of the evidence, he might state that questions were asked with respect to the education, examination, and admission of cadets into the scientific corps, and that those questions were answered with great openness and candour), he (Mr. Ellice) observed something of hesitation when the question was put as to who was responsible for the examination and admission of those cadets. He had no doubt that his noble Friend at the head of the War Department had done everything requisite to place the whole of these departments under his immediate direction; but the country would certainly feel better satisfied if a detailed statement of the alterations that had been made were laid before them. He would now allude to a subject upon which hitherto he had not troubled the House; namely, the amount of the military Estimates. He thought they were such as the people would not tolerate on a peace establishment, but he did not desire that the Government should make any reductions in them without great consideration. But when he said that, he must add that we were beginning to make a great experiment. We had begun to copy the system of continental nations with respect to the organization of our army. We had divided our army into divisions and brigades, and had thereby rendered necessary the employment of an immense number of staff officers—far more than were hitherto deemed sufficient. If he had moved for a comparative statement of the Estimates which it once fell to his lot to move, and of the present estimates so far as concerned the number of staff officers employed, there was not one hon. Member in that House who would not be astonished by the recent increase. He would express no very decided opinion on the new system which we had begun of establishing large
  2022
  military camps and barracks in the centre of the country. It was too late now to protest against Aldershot. He was one of those, however, who thought that in pushing these establishments too far we ran the risk of having them hereafter curtailed beyond what it would be prudent to curtail them for the national security. This was a risk which always seemed to be run in England. At one time the country was in a fever of impatience to grant everything that was asked for on account of our military establishments, and after that it went to the other extreme in refusing reasonable demands. In thus expressing an opinion adverse to Aldershot he did not wish to display any hostile spirit either to the Government or to the projectors of this establishment, but, when there existed that settled kind of peace, which seemed to exclude any immediate prospect of hostilities anywhere, he looked with apprehension to what might be the opinion of the country two or three years hence respecting a military camp built to hold 4,000 infantry, 1,500 cavalry, and two or three batteries of artillery—a force which, with the followers, must be estimated at not far short of 10,000 men, and that, too, more especially when he considered the difficulty of maintaining the discipline and organization of such a fortified camp. At the same time he knew the object with which this had been done, and he was quite willing to admit that that object was a very good one, and that preparations ought to be made in time of peace for a contingency which would expose the country to much danger during war. He thought, however, we might have made these preparations in another way. If inquiry had been made into the amount of barrack accommodation we possessed—distinguishing between that which was necessary for our peace establishment and that which might be required for the emergencies of war—he believed it would have been found unnecessary to vote the enormous sums for both purposes which this House had been called upon for. They had voted money for the barracks at Dovor, Winchester, Portsmouth, and elsewhere; for huts at the Curragh and other places; and he felt sure that the existing barrack accommodation ought to be sufficient, and that inquiry ought to have been made respecting it before recourse was had to these new establishments. In London he supposed there was barrack room for 5,000 men; there were extensive

  2023
  barracks at Woolwich for the artillery; the barracks at Colchester and Chatham would hold a large number of troops, and he suggested whether it would not have been better policy to keep our troops at these separate stations, bringing them to Aldershot to be exercised and disciplined during the summer months. This was the plan he should have adopted; the Government had adopted another; but no doubt their object was the same—namely, that of rendering our establishments during peace ready for any emergencies in time of war. Now, it was quite ridiculous to talk of our military reforms unless we were determined that such an army as we maintained during peace should be as efficient as possible, and that the officers who commanded it should be of an age which should give the country hope that they would be qualified to act during war. He was afraid, however, from what he heard and saw, that, if he were to move for a return of the ages of officers now placed upon the staff, it would be seen that there was a great number from whom the country could derive very little service upon any emergency. Thus Lord Seaton, at eighty-two, was commanding our garrisons in Ireland, instead of a young man who would see personally to the condition of the regiments, and who would be gaining experience there which would be most valuable in time of war. The appointment of young men instead of old veterans like Lord Seaton (of whom, however, he spoke with the greatest possible respect) would be what he should call a proper system of administration during peace. We might talk as we would about army reform, bnt unless such a system were introduced talking would be vain. He knew as well as anybody the difficulty which existed. There were many old officers anxious for employment, and it was very painful to say to them, "We must appoint younger men, to your exclusion." The country could not value too highly the past services of many of these veterans, and there was no distinction or compensation which it ought not to be willing to bestow on them, but they ought to be told firmly "We cannot employ you under present circumstances, because we must enable those officers who will be fit for service when we want them to gain that experience during peace which will be of such value in time of war." He begged pardon for having troubled the House so long. He had come there not
  2024
  intending to say one word upon the subject, but the hon. and gallant General having appealed to him as to the present organization of the army, he could not refrain from making these few observations.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that although concurring in them he must express a hope that the House would not be led away by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman from the extremely interesting and important subject which had been brought under their notice by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon, He, too, had been a member of the Sebastopol Committee. He need not repeat to the House the abundant proof adduced before that Committee of the great confusion which existed in the military departments of this country, and he, for one, believed that the difficulties and sufferings which our army experienced in the Crimea were mainly attributable to that confusion rather than to the misconduct of any individual officers. His hon. and gallant Friend had done a great public service by calling attention to this subject in a manner which must convince every one who heard him that he was influenced by no other motive than the promotion of the public service. With the right hon. Gentleman he (Sir J. Pakington) did hope that, after having suffered so much by the want of due regulations during war, Her Majesty's Government were sensible of the importance of making effectual arrangements in a time of peace, and would be prepared to state to the House that the duties of the different military departments were really understood and strictly defined; and that hereafter, if we should again have the misfortune to be involved in war, the country would have security that they would not again suffer from the confusion which before took place in the departments. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that first in importance was the necessity of a clear understanding as to the respective duties of the Secretary for War and the Commander in Chief. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the course of last Session this important point was brought forward in another place, and upon that occasion he thought the answer given by Lord Panmure was a satisfactory one. It was very desirable, however, that the country should have something more definite and decided before them than even the speech then delivered by the noble Lord the Secretary

  2025
  for War. They had been led to hope that the Government would lay upon the table some written statement by which the duties of these officers and the other departments should be clearly defined, and it would, he thought, be satisfactory to the public if the Government would avail themselves of the opportunity for doing so given them by his hon. and gallant Friend.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONobserved that the question of the relative duties of the Secretary for War and the Commander in Chief was not entirely a military one, and therefore he was rather loth to refer to it in the presence of so many statesmen better able to deal with the subject. No doubt the situation of Commander in Chief was one of great responsibility, and formerly that responsibility was direct to the Crown. A Secretary of State for War had, however, now been appointed, and there certainly was great difficulty in defining exactly the duties and responsibility of either situations. The object of this recent alteration was unity in the action of the War Departments; but he did not think this unity could be effected when you had two officials with correlative powers not defined. The discipline and punishment of the army were left, he believed, as entirely as they could be when there was a Secretary for War, with the Commander in Chief; but he believed it would be very difficult to say who was really the person responsible for any particular regulation, or even particular points of discipline. Now, the discipline of the army must be left in the hands of the Commander in Chief. The appointment of persons to commissions also must surely be left to the Commander in Chief. Then who, under those circumstances, was to be responsible? Hon. Gentlemen asked questions in that House, and expected answers from the Under Secretary for War; but surely, as a general rule, the Commander in Chief was responsible; and if so, he ought to have the most ample and independent power to carry that responsibility into effect. With respect to the direct interference of Parliament with the war establishments of the country, he thought that it would be very desirable to consider whether the direction of those establishments could not be separated from the finance arrangements, as they had been previously to the war, so that the latter might continue to be the main business of the Secretary of State
  2026
  for War, who should confine himself to that subject, and to making himself acquainted with the resources and establishments of other countries, and the establishments necessary for ourselves in case we went to war with those countries, without interfering in all those questions of detail which, under the present system, Parliament often forced him to interfere with. If the Secretary of State for War confined himself to that, he thought that he would have quite enough to do, without touching the details, for which the Commander in Chief ought to be responsible. Let them take the question of honours, for example. He presumed that honours and rewards were at present partly under the control of the Secretary of State for War, but if the Commander in Chief were responsible for the discipline and punishment of the army, surely he should also have the rewards of the army under his entire control. With respect to the subject of finance, he knew that the country did not like a military man to touch that question. That might be right, or it might be wrong; at all events, it was constitutional, but ho feared that it very often crippled the executive powers of the Commander in Chief; and, at the same time, he could not help remarking that the necessity for an order for every trifling expense going through a civil department was one of the causes of the great waste of time which, under the present system, was inevitable. Upon the subject of honours, however, it was a mistake to say that a person in the position of the Commander in Chief—whether he were of the blood royal, or a distinguished general officer—was not sufficiently responsible by his public station, and by his sense of high military feeling, for what he did. He thought, therefore, that on such a subject it was not necessary that there should be a direct responsibility through the Under Secretary for War to that House. With respect to Lord Seaton, who had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Ellice), there could be no doubt that his experience was of great advantage to the army; and it must be remembered that an officer of such standing, although his years were great, could appeal with peculiar force to what he had seen and done on service, and could afford such advice and information, founded on actual experience, as might be worth, perhaps, a great deal more than the instruction of younger officers, who had not seen

  2027
  the same extent of service. As regarded the increase in the number of staff appointments which had taken place on the close of the war, he imagined that they must have originated in the desire that the array should profit by a continuance of that experience which had been gained in the Crimea. Certainly a great many officers had been so appointed; but they had held very responsible appointments in the Crimea, and it was in order to bring the information which they had thus acquired to bear upon the army generally that he thought those officers had been continued in England. With respect to Aldershot, it was evident that there must be barracks in England. If there were sufficient barrack accommodation to house the troops without it, perhaps there would be no necessity for Aldershot; but as, just previously to the war, we had a very useful camp at Chobham, which had been presided over, and most efficiently taught by Lord Seaton, he thought it to be a great advantage that we should have a similar place now to carry on that same description of instruction, which certainly had proved of very great service in the Crimea.
  MR. HENLEYthought that the House and the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant General who had brought this matter under their consideration. They had heard years and years ago all these subjects, of which complaint was now made, reiterated over and over again by the late Mr. Hume usque ad nauseam; but as Mr. Hume was a nonprofessional man nothing had resulted, and the time which had been occupied had been almost wasted. But now that military gentlemen themselves, who perfectly understood the question, and who could speak with authority upon it, had taken it up, he thought that there was some hope that the inconveniences which had been pointed out would be remedied. He regretted to find, however, that those gentlemen seemed to have little hope that that round-about system which had been so deprecated, and which compelled an officer on service when he wanted an article to go through a variety of civil departments before he could obtain it, could be put an end to; because he had thought that one of the objects of the concentration of the departments which had recently taken place was to avoid that "circumbendibus" system from which the army had suffered so much, and that the Secretary of State
  2028
  for War would be able to put an end to it. He thought that the House and the public had a right to have information afforded them as to the mode in which those departments were to be regulated, and he was glad to perceive that that right seemed to be recognized by the Government. He hoped, however, that it would be ultimately found practicable to establish some system, which would enable the different branches of the service to get what they wanted more directly than now, or to point out more distinctly who was to blame if they did not get it. At the same time he fully admitted that there were enormous difficulties in the way of bringing about the required reforms. No one wished the control of the army in a military sense to be brought into the House, because that control properly and constitutionally belonged to the Crown; and it would be probably one of the greatest misfortunes which could befal the army to bring its direction under the control of Parliament. But now that there was an officer of the high standing of a Secretary of State for War in the country, we had a right to expect that he would apply his powerful mind—and there was no one more competent for the task than the noble Lord now at the head of the department if he chose to devote himself to it—to drawing a distinct and intelligible line between the duties of his own office and those of the Commander in Chief, so that the respective branches of the service might clearly understand what their several duties were, and, in case of those duties not being performed, that the House might be able to come down upon those branches where there was default. It was quite impossible for any one who had paid attention to what had passed during the last two or three years not to see that somewhere or other there was a great want of arrangement and management. Almost a quarrel, he was about to say, was going on among the different parties, and perhaps none of them were at fault, but there was a disposition to shove the blame here and there; so that he did not think that anybody was able to say with respect to one single place that there was the fault. That was a state of things which must be most unsatisfactory to the country. That House never grudged large sums of money in the aggregate for the support of the military establishments, and under these circumstances the Government

  2029
  must not be surprised if the country complained, and complained bitterly, on hearing upon one day that officers in the army were not qualified by education for the higher duties of command, and on being told upon another day that such was the confusion existing in the arrangements of the different departments that nothing but bad results could ensue. Hearing such things as these he should not be surprised if the country said, "We are paying large sums of money, but we do not get our money's worth." It only required one powerful mind to arrange these matters and bring them into one harmonious mould. This was effected in other countries and might be done here. He hoped the House would get an assurance from the Government that this was a matter they were not indifferent to.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthought they did not go the right way to form efficient officers, and especially officers of the staff. He observed that in pay and emoluments; aides-de-camp in the field got as much as brigade-majors and adjutant-generals of division, and hon. Members seemed to demur to this statement. He had his evidence in his hand to which he would refer. An assistant adjutant general of division; has, per diem, staff pay, 14 s. 3d.; a brigade major of a brigade ditto, 9s. 6d.; an aide-de-camp, 9s. 6d. Now, it is to be considered that by the regulations, a brigade major must be a captain, and that he is probably the hardest-worked staff officer of the three. He also is on the general staff, and does not live with the general, and therefore he pays for his own food. An aide-de-camp may be an ensign of two years' service. He lives with his general, and his keep may fairly be reckoned at 5s. per diem, which added to the staff-pay makes 14 s. 6d. per diem, that is 3d. per diem more than the assistant adjutant general, who must be a field officer, and who does not live with his general. The aide-de-camp's duty in our service is to gallop about, carrying messages, whereas the brigade-major has to superintend the formations and keep the rosters, and make the detail of duties, in fact, a most responsible office not to be compared to that of aide-de-camp. He believed he was right in saying that in the French service, before an officer could become an aide-de-camp, he must have served two years in the artillery, two years in the cavalry, and two years in the infantry, and was besides subject to a most severe examination.
  2030
  There was another point to which he wished to refer. He was informed that an officer, who had served during the period of the war in the office of the Minister of War, had retired with a retiring pension of £1,000 for less than two years' service in the department of the Minister for War. At present, being in command of an island, he did not draw his retiring pension, but as soon as he lost that appointment, which would happen in five years, he would draw it. At the same time he found from the Estimates that many an old general officer who had performed distinguished services in the field only got, on retiring, good conduct pay of £100. He could not understand, too, why an officer who sold out of the army to get the advantage of his commission should lose his good-conduct pay, while the officer who remained on half-pay retained it. He also stated that while the army was in the Crimea great evil arose from officers not attending to the duty of keeping the soldiers' pocket ledger in his own hand. It sometimes happened that the regimental books were lost, and then the soldier, on obtaining his charter of liberty, had only to produce his pocket ledger in the handwriting of his officer to get his pay. In ibis respect it were well that the regulations on paper were strictly enforced. Also, the rate with regard to the daily pay of men should be strictly carried out, as otherwise sergeants had a dangerous power of favouritism which tended to produce discontent. The imperative orders were to pay each man daily. The men, it is true, liked accumulations to grow up, so; that they might have more money in hand it once. This was injurious to good discipline, and yet the rule had been systematically violated.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, I wish, the first place, to say a few words in reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, though it is not perfectly connected with the main subject of debate, in reference to the subject of barracks. The right hon. Gentleman doubts whether there is not already ample barrack accommodation for the troops stationed in this country. I think he will find on examination that the barrack accommodation is scanty, and if we are to build now barracks, I do not think we could have a better situation than close the ground which affords ample scope or the exercise of the troops. Take the instance of barracks in towns—there would

  2031
  probably be great difficulty in getting ground for the exercise of a single regiment, whereas at Aldershot there is ample space for the exercise of a much larger force than the troops now stationed there. If, unfortunately, we should be engaged in a war involving the defence of the country, the troops at Aldershot would be ready to reinforce the troops engaged in repelling an attack, and their place at Aldershot would be filled up by other troops who would be moved there. The subject brought under consideration by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) is, undoubtedly, one of great interest and very considerable importance. I think, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite aware of the present state of the arrangements with respect to the matters to which he has alluded. He dwelt very much on the confusion existing between the different departments in the early part of the war, as explained by the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Committee. He himself admits, however, that that confusion and the difficulties consequent thereon were remedied in the last year of the war; and the only observation he made on the conduct of the Government at home, with respect to that latter period, was that they had gone from one extreme to another, and that whereas in the earlier period the army was exposed to great suffering and privations from the want of many things necessary to the wellbeing and comfort of the men; in the latter period they were overwhelmed with supplies and comforts more than they wanted. He stated that if that army had had to advance into the interior of the country, and to carry on a war of movement, a great portion of the things they had with them in camp before Sebastopol must have been left behind. In the very next sentence, however, he gave a reason explanatory of that circumstance, because he said no analogy could be drawn between the condition of an army situated as our army before Sebastopol was, carrying on a siege, and not moving, and an army operating in a campaign and moving in the interior of a country from place to place. The Government at home, then, supplied the army according to the nature of the position in which it was placed; and as the army was not moving in campaign, but as it was stationary before Sebastopol, within reach of the sea and its supplies, the Government did furnish it with a great number of conveniences
  2032
  which it would be impossible to supply the army with had the scene of their operations been different or their position other than what it was. The House must recollect that when the war began our military departments were not in a satisfactory state. There were four different authorities—the Secretary for War and the Colonies, who conducted the political part of the arrangements, who determined on expeditions and on the general movements of the army; the Commander in Chief, who had the charge of the discipline of the army; the Secretary at War, who examined the accounts and regulated the finance of the army; and the Master General of the Ordnance, who, so far as regarded the artillery and engineers, combined the functions both of Commander in Chief and Secretary at War. Well, the first thing which was done was to separate the office of Secretary of State for War from that of Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that having been done a distinct department of Secretary of State for War was created. There still remained, however, the office of Secretary at War, under whose superintendence the financial arrangements of the army were placed; the office of Master General of the Ordnance, who performed the duties connected with the artillery and engineer departments; and the office of Commander in Chief, who, in conjunction with the Secretary at War, discharged the rest of the duties connected with the administration of the army. The Ordnance Department was however deprived of its head, the noble Lord who filled that office having been selected as a person of great experience and possessed of high military talents to take the command of the army in the Crimea. The consequence was that the Ordnance was left in a state of comparative inefficiency, inasmuch as the officer who exercised the chief authority in that department was absent, and was necessarily succeeded by officers who possessed a more limited control. That circumstance I think accounts satisfactorily for all those difficulties and embarrassments which occurred during the earlier stages of the war. I may also add that the Secretary of State for War had a new department to create, and that while that department was in progress of arrangement it was extremely difficult to deal efficiently with those various important questions in relation to the administration of the service which constantly

  2033
  arose. When my noble Friend Lord Panmure succeeded to the office, those arrangements were altered. The office of Secretary at War, which was vacated, much to my regret, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, was attached to the office of Secretary of State for War; the office of Master General of the Ordnance was abolished, and the duties connected with the Ordnance were handed over to the Commander in Chief, so far as related to the discipline of the corps of artillery and engineers, while its financial duties were transferred to the Department for War. Instead of four departments there now remained only two; and these two combine all the functions which were previously performed by the four, the result being great simplification in the transaction of the various duties connected with the army and increased efficiency and expedition in the performance of those duties. Well, the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon and those who have followed him upon the other side of the House have dwelt very much upon the expediency of establishing some distinct and positive line of separation between the duties which are discharged by the Secretary for War and those which are performed by the Commander in Chief; but I cannot help thinking that those who are at all accustomed to the administration of affairs must know that in the case of departments which are in their nature far more distinct than those of Commander in Chief and Secretary for War there constantly arises the necessity for communication between the one and the other and a mutual dependence one upon the other, in order that the public service may be efficiently carried on; and though a line of separation may be drawn as clearly and as distinctly as it can be drawn, yet you will find that the one department must from time to time avail itself of the assistance of the other. I may also state that we live in a country which is governed by Parliamentary arrangement, and it becomes therefore essentially necessary that no act of the Crown should be done in reference to which there should not be some responsible adviser who would be responsible and ready to explain to Parliament the reason why a particular line of policy was pursued. That being the case, it becomes at once perfectly evident that you cannot build up between the office of Secretary for War and that of the Commander in Chief a wall of brass which
  2034
  would entirely separate the two, rendering all communication between them, in matters in which either is concerned, impossible. The fundamental distinction between the two offices is, that the Secretary of State for War is responsible for everything relating to the political and financial arrangements of the army, while the Commander in Chief is primarily responsible for all which has reference to the discipline and promotion of the troops. It would, however, be a matter of impossibility to provide that those two heads of departments should not, without injury to the public service, hold constant personal communication with one another upon points which are intimately connected with their respective offices. The Commander in Chief, for instance, whenever anything occurs bearing upon the discharge of his own proper functions which becomes the subject of public comment, may derive considerable advantage from communication with the Secretary for War, and is undoubtedly entitled to take that course, just as any person in a particular administration is entitled to hold communication with a colleague even upon a point relating almost exclusively to his own particular department, but which may become matter of discussion, and with respect to which he may he able to obtain from his colleague assistance and advice which may be of considerable advantage to him in dealing with the question. In the same manner, when the Secretary for War wishes to carry out any particular arrangements with respect to the political affairs of the army, the employment of the troops or the financial administration of the army, he naturally communicates with the Commander in Chief, for the purpose of ascertaining how these arrangements might most advantageously be carried into effect. Draw, therefore, as you will upon paper any positive line of distinction between the officers in question, it is impossible that you can do so without interfering with that harmonious and confidential intercourse between the two, without which the military service cannot be efficiently administered. I am happy to be able to say that such is the nature of the communication which now subsists between my noble Friend at the head of the War Department and the illustrious Prince who holds the office of Commander in Chief. Nothing, indeed, can be more completely harmonious and confidential than their intercourse. Then, again, there is another principle which lies at the bottom of many of the

  2035
  difficulties which were experienced in the Crimea—of many of those difficulties which the hon. and gallant General the Member for Huntingdon represents as still continuing, although in a less degree, and which it is impossible altogether to overcome. The principle to which I allude is this—that in a great service like that of the army, in connection with which immense expense is incurred, and a great amount of stores and material of all sorts has to be provided, there must be a check placed upon the application of the money which may be voted for those purposes, and some means of ascertaining that it has been devoted to the accomplishment of the objects for which it was granted. In order to establish that check those accounts must be founded upon requisitions and receipts, because no system can be satisfactory in a financial point of view which dispenses with those written documents, the inspection of which alone will satisfy those before whom the military accounts are laid that the money voted has been properly laid out and the stores purchased applied to the vises to which Parliament intended that the should be directed. The hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Huntingdon says that each department ought to be complete in itself, and should possess entire control over everything which appertains to the functions which it is intended to perform. Now, I at once admit that it is quite natural that those officers who were examined before the Chelsea Commission and the Sebastopol Committee should have given expression to that opinion, inasmuch as they no doubt thought it expedient that that which they desired to do they should be enabled themselves to accomplish, and that they should be the sole judges of what the requirements of their particular departments really were. The hon. and gallant Officer, if I understand him rightly, endeavoured to show the inconvenience of a contrary state of things by a reference to the Army Medical Department, who, in case they wanted to send out medical stores and comforts, are compelled to apply to the Admiralty for a transport, instead of being in a position to go into the market and hire one upon their own account. I think, however, the House must see that if the power to do that were given to the Army Medical Department the whole service would be thrown into confusion, and everything like classification in that service would be thrown overboard. Now, there is, in my opinion, no
  2036
  principle which it is more essential to maintain than that which enables us to classify the duties of the respective military departments. The Admiralty is the department whose duty it is to provide transports, and if the Army Medical Board require a vessel they must apply to the Admiralty. But, if that Board and all the other departments were at liberty to go into the market to bid for transports against the Admiralty, the result would be that the price of the vessels would be raised, and that great additional expense would be entailed upon the country, and the fruit of this system would be inextricable confusion. Now, my noble Friend the Secretary for War has effected an arrangement which tends very much, if not completely, to obviate many of those inconveniences to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon has referred. He has, for instance, established a separate storekeeper's department; and, therefore, as was the case during the latter period of the Crimean war—the Quartermaster General or any other officer wanting certain stores is enabled to make a requisition to that effect to the Storekeeper General at any particular station, whose duty it is to take immediate steps either to issue the stores asked for, if he has them, or to provide them in case they should not be at the time in his possession. That officer, I may add, is responsible for the care and the distribution of those stores; and the military officer in need of them has nothing to do but to make application to be supplied with them in the manner which have just described. The House then, I trust, will perceive that it is exceedingly difficult to draw that complete line of separation between particular departments which some hon. Gentlemen wish to see established. My noble Friend, I may farther state, is engaged, in concert with the Commander in Chief, in endeavouring to carry out the various arrangements which are necessary, in order to render, as complete as it is possible to make it, the distribution of business between the departments over which they preside. It was stated—I think by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry—that the Commander in Chief within the last few days seemed to have some hesitation in stating with whom it rested to make certain arrangements in connection with the subject of education in the army. Now, I may in reply to that observation remark that

  2037
  such hesitation was the natural result of the present state of the question. A council has been appointed, of which the Commander in Chief is the president, for the purpose of preparing a plan for the education of officers. That plan has not yet been completed, and upon its completion must of course depend the decision of the question with whom the arrangements with respect to military education rest. Now, the manner in which aides-de-camp are appointed in our army has been very much dwelt upon by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny), and the example of foreign armies has been referred to in order to show that officers are not appointed to the post of aide-de-camp abroad unless they have previously done duty in different departments of the service. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that an Order was recently issued under the operation of which no officer can, after the expiration of this year, be appointed aide-de-camp unless he has previously passed an examination showing that he possesses a competent knowledge of those different branches of the service which relate to the duties which in his new position he may be called upon to discharge. I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire in the opinion that it is undesirable that matters connected with the discipline of the army should be discussed in this House, because, as he very properly remarked, the result must be the adoption of a course exceedingly inconvenient with regard to the conduct of the business of the House, and calculated to prove very detrimental to the discipline of the army. It is, however, impossible so to limit discussion in this assembly that questions should not now and then arise in reference to the administration of the army, with respect to which it would be desirable that somebody here should be in a position to give an explanation. Now, the Commander in Chief has not a seat in this House, nor is he represented here by any officer belonging to his particular department. The representative of the War Department among us is my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, whose chief sits in the other House of Parliament; and in order that they should be enabled to satisfy their respective Houses that any subject which might be brought forward for discussion was one with which neither House ought to deal, or that no injustice had been committed in a particular instance which some noble
  2038
  Lord or hon. Member might deem it to be his duty to bring before Parliament on the ground that a grievance in connection with it existed—in order, I repeat, that they should be enabled to give the necessary information upon those points, it is necessary that they should be in constant and confidential communication with the Commander in Chief. There is no document at present which could be laid before the House which would meet the views of the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Huntingdon; but if in the course of the arrangements which are being carried into effect between my noble Friend the Secretary for War and the Commander in Chief it should be found practicable to frame any single document that would answer the hon. and gallant Officer's purpose, there will, of course, not be the slightest difficulty in laying it upon the table of the House. With respect to the duties of the different military departments, I apprehend the gallant Officer must be aware that the "book of Regulations for the Army" contains all these directions in relation to the duties of those departments which would enable officers to acquire all the necessary information upon that head. I can only say in conclusion, that in my opinion, in a constitutional country like this—with a Parliament which has a right to inquire into all those transactions in connection with the army in regard to which its Members may not think that the Crown has been properly advised, and which will exercise that right—it would be absolutely impossible to draw an impassable line of distinction between the two departments now particularly under our notice, or to lay it down as a strict rule that the chief of either department should not confer with the head of the other upon a matter intimately connected with the efficient administration of both. The good of the service requires that the most harmonious co-operation should subsist between the two, and I must repeat that such co-operation never existed in a higher degree than at the present moment between my noble Friend the Secretary for War and His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the present discussion must recall to the minds of those who had watched the progress of events since the commencement of the war in the Crimea, as well as the debates of the last two or three years, the power and foresight by which the speeches delivered

  2039
  by Earl Grey in another place were characterized. The warning, it was true, which those speeches conveyed had been disregarded; but as time rolled on that House and the country must have felt how great were the advantages which might have been secured if the advice of that noble Lord had been taken. He would not trespass upon the time of the House by reading extracts from the speeches of the noble Earl, but in order to show how completely his prophecies had been fulfilled he (Mr. Stafford) should recommend to the serious attention of the House the speeches which the noble Lord had made, not only when Secretary for War—during which time he had rendered more essential service to the army than, perhaps, any other person who had filled that office—but from the first outbreak of hostilities with Russia until the close of last Session. Having paid that tribute to the noble Earl, he might say that it had for some time been evident that dissatisfaction prevailed in military quarters with respect to the working of the War-office and the Horse Guards. It was complained that with the present divided authority—an authority from post to pillar, if he might use the term—it was impossible to ascertain to which department the responsibility of a particular act attached. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had most justly observed that confidential communication ought to exist between two Members of different departments; that communication, for instance, must be permitted to subsist between the Admiralty and the War-office; but it was in his (Mr. Stafford's) opinion extremely desirable that, while such was the case, the public at large should be in a position to know at whose door the responsibility of a particular act was to be laid. The noble Lord had also stated that, while the Secretary of State for War had had the political and financial departments of the administration of the army under his control, that department which related to promotion and discipline was under the direction of the commander in chief; but, so far as ho (Mr. Stafford) could learn from the tone of the debate, some hon. Members entertained, in reference to the latter point; opinions somewhat at variance from those to which the noble Lord had given expression. He had, however, risen chiefly for the purpose of correcting what appeared to him to be a misrepresentation upon the part of the noble Lord upon some remarks which
  2040
  had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon. The remarks to which he alluded referred to the medical department of the army, and the noble Lord had mistaken the meaning of his hon. and gallant Friend in supposing that he intended to propose that the Director General of the medical department should be invested with powers to go into the market and freight a vessel for himself with those drugs and medical comforts which he might deem it expedient to send out to our army when engaged in a foreign country. What his hon. and gallant Friend desired—and he (Mr. Stafford) thought very justly—was, that a transport for the conveyance of drugs and medical comforts for the army should be placed at the disposal of the Director General of the medical department when such drugs might constitute mainly the cargo of the vessel. In illustration of the advantages which might result from the adoption of that suggestion, he might remind the House that a vessel having on board the medical comforts of the army had during the late war been sent out to Scutari, but that a large supply of shot and shell having been placed over those articles, the vessel was unable to unship them at Scutari, and the result had been that they had been subsequently completely lost in the Black Sea. Now, if a different arrangement had been, and if the medical department had been allowed to freight a vessel of their own, so serious a disaster would not in all probability have occurred. If the Government were to say to the Director General that they were ready to place a vessel at his disposal, which he might send out upon his own responsibility, with his own supercargo, and under the obligation of immediately reporting its arrival at its destination, the result might be found to be extremely satisfactory, while, at all events, the system was one entirely different from that of allowing the Director General to go into the market himself for the purpose of hiring a vessel. He could not resume his seat without stating that he had never heard the noble Lord address the House upon the subject of army reform that he did not feel that the heart of the noble Lord was in the service. How those who were more immediately connected with the War Department might obstruct the noble Lord in carrying out his views he could not say, but he felt assured that for any improvements in the administration of the army which had taken place the country

  2041
  was mainly indebted to the noble Lord's exertions.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) had mentioned the case of an officer who had lately retired upon a pension of £1,000. From the description the hon. Baronet had given, he presumed he alluded to Colonel Mundy, who had received the appointment of Governor of the island of Jersey. He hoped the Under Secretary for War would explain whether Colonel Mundy had had that pension conferred upon him, and, if so, by whose authority it had been conferred.
  MR. LINDSAYhoped that the Government would not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford) to place a transport at the service of the medical department. The truth was, that all the evils they had had to deplore during the late war were caused by the meddling of departments; whereas, the proper course would have been for those departments to report to the Admiralty what they wanted, and to leave to the Admiralty the responsibility of shipping and delivering the stores they required. Suppose, when the soldiers were dying for want of medicine, a ship freighted with drugs alone were to be lost. The proper course was to send out medical comforts as they were required, and not to run the risk of sending out a shipload of them, as the hon. Gentleman had recommended.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he must complain that the observations he had made on a former night relative to the camp at Aldershot had been misrepresented by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He begged to say, that he quite approved of the purchase of Aldershot, while as to the pecuniary part of the question, he was willing to take the word of the noble Lord. Neither did he object to the massing of troops during the summer months. What he objected to was, that what was intended to be a camp should become a military town, for if once the Government began to build large barracks, they would do away with the original intention of the establishment of Aldershot. At present, it was by no means a practical camp, but was more like a squatters' village, and soldiers had no opportunity of learning field duties there. It had been drained and improved by contract, and the soldiers had not turned a sod, with the exception of some field works, which, in the first instance, he had thought were executed by contract, but which he
  2042
  had since found were partially made by some regiments of militia. The other night a letter was read from a gallant general with regard to the teaching of military drawing and the like; but it had struck him as surprising, that only six officers should attend the classes. He had been informed that six applications had been made from one regiment, and that they had been declined. Two of the regiments were about to be sent under canvass to another part of the heath; but a body of engineers had been sent to dig wells and to prepare the ground for them. In short, the whole system of Aldershot was one of parade rather than of practice. With regard to the responsibility and duties of the various military departments, he thought the army greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), for having introduced that subject to the attention of the House; and he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, and the Under Secretary for War, would take steps to remove the want of harmony which now existed, and that such a reform would be introduced in our military system as would ensure to all ranks and classes, from the general to the soldier, equal chances of success in the profession they had made their choice. He did not mean to attack individuals, when he spoke of a system which had been engrafted on our military system, and had at last become really part and parcel of it—he meant the system of favouritism. Until that was abolished, he believed there was no hope of introducing any method of education into the army, or encouraging our officers and men to strive to improve themselves in the different branches of their profession. When a man knew that it was connection, not competency, which ensured success, he would not struggle. The time had arrived when reforms were about to be introduced into our military system, and he hoped that, among other things, this subject would be taken into consideration, and that in future we should find that all the ranks in the army had an equal chance of promotion according to their merits.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that he had thought, after the full and able statement of General Knollys, which had been read to the House the other night, that an Aldershot discussion was at an end for the present, and had felt that it would have been presumptuous in him to have offered

  2043
  any remarks in corroboration of a Report upon such a subject from such a quarter. But as the matter had been again alluded to this evening, and he (Colonel Gilpin) had had the command of a militia regiment at Aldershot for five or six months, he would briefly mention a few facts which had come under his observation whilst he was there. So far from being a camp of luxury and indolence, military instruction and drill were always going on. In addition to the usual parades, and weather permitting, there were two field-days a week. The men, both of the militia and the line, were constantly practised in cooking their breakfast and dinner in the field, in route marching, outpost duty, brigade evolutions, and pontooning. Some of the men were placed under the Engineers' department to learn the construction of military bridges and other such duties. The soldiers had not only, when he was there, to pitch and strike their tents, but to occupy them too at a not very agreeable season in the year. With respect to the supply of water, if wells were required to be sunk, the Engineer department would have been the proper department to sink them; but no assistance was rendered by them, and the troops obtained water from the canal, and filtered it for their own use. It was true, the men were not engaged in field-works, but it was because they could not find time for field-works. The regiments being all newly raised, the men had to go through an extra quantity of drill; as many as 1,000 men were then engaged in filling ruts and levelling the ground. All that could be done was done. A more painstaking and efficient officer than General Knollys could not be found in the Queen's service, and it was perfectly marvellous to see what he did with the raw recruits, whom he turned, as if by magic, into good troops. He (Colonel Gilpin) was one of those who were responsible for the purchase of Aldershot, and he believed that there never was a better investment of the public money. For strategic purposes, he believed it was well selected, and for military purposes it was perfect. It contained a great extent and variety of ground—hill and dale, wood and water, and he felt some surprise at the objections now urged, when he remembered how the Government, night after night were urged, to get some place in which large bodies of men could be moved together. But then it was said, Aldershot was disagreeable, and that the men disliked it and deserted. Now, the place
  2044
  was notorious for its sanitary advantages, and, as to desertion, he could only say, that during the five or six months his regiment was at Aldershot he had not lost a single man by desertion from the ranks. A great deal of volunteering was going on into the line, for his men said, if they were to do the work of the line, they might as well have its advantages. If he had been in the House, he should have supported the Vote asked for by the Government, for so far from being a failure, Aldershot had been in many respects preeminently successful.
  LORD NAASsaid, that there were unfortunately a great many petty offences committed in the neighbourhood of a camp; and the country naturally complained of the expense incurred in conveying the delinquents to and from the county gaol. He would ask, therefore, if it were the intention of the Government to establish a prison or bridewell in the neighbourhood of the Curragh camp?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that with respect to certain reports having reference to the site of Netley Hospital, and the alleged defects in the mode of ventilating that establishment, it would be better, if those reports were well founded, to abandon the scheme, notwithstanding the money that had been expended upon it.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Government intended to act upon the Report of the Commissioners, who recommended that free places in Woolwich should be given to the two candidates who stood first at each entrance examination, and that the two next should pay only half the contribution which would otherwise be required from them? The adoption of that recommendation would encourage emulation, and thereby raise the standard of education. He would also ask whether any provision to carry it out would be made in the Estimates of this year?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the question put to him by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) related to the case of a gallant officer who had been civilly employed under the War Department, and was now governor of one of the dependencies of the Crown. The hon. Baronet asked what amount of pension that gallant officer would be entitled to at the end of his five years' service as governor; but he (Sir J. Ramsden) could not at present state what the exact amount would be. If, however, the hon. Baronet

  2045
  would repeat his question another time, he would take care to supply him with full information on the subject. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), he hoped there was now no fear, under present arrangements, of the inconvenience to which the hon. Member had alluded again occurring. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the recommendation that the Director General of the Medical Department should have a transport under his authority for the special conveyance of medical stores. The omission of that provision might, and he believed did, lead to great inconvenience when the departments were divided into so many different heads. But now that they were brought together under one authority he thought there was not that danger, because it was naturally the duty of the Storekeeper General to consider what stores had to be sent out, and he would have to arrange with the Admiralty how the different transports should be loaded. There would not, therefore, be a danger of any omission such as there was when so many Boards had to be consulted before a conclusion was arrived at. As to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) with regard to the Curragh camp, it was not the intention of the Government to establish a military prison in its neighbourhood. They believed that the existing arrangements were sufficient, and for this reason, that they intended to keep the Curragh as a camp of instruction for the summer only. Therefore there would not be that necessity to provide for the custody of offenders which would exist if the camp were kept open all the year round. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster on the subject of Netley Hospital, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was no intention whatever on the part of Government to abandon the building. There was every reason to hope that there was no foundation for the rumour that the situation was an unhealthy one owing to the amount of land that was left bare at low tide. On the contrary, a meeting had been held of the medical body in Southampton, and they had drawn up a report favourable to the locality. With respect to the report that the windows opened on a corridor instead of upon the open air, and thus rendered the wards unhealthy, he was informed that there were windows at either end of the wards, and that one
  2046
  opened on the corridor and the other into the open air. To the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt), whether it was intended to act upon the report of the commissioners of inquiry, recommending that free places in Woolwich should be given to the two who stood first at each entrance examination, and that the two next should only pay half contributions, he had to reply that it was not the intention of the Government to give effect to that recommendation, and their reason was, that they considered the prize which was held out to candidates to offer themselves for examination was already quite sufficient. That prize was, that, if they passed a good examination, they would in course of time obtain free commissions in the artillery or engineers.
  MR. PALKsaid, that he would revert to the subject of Netley Hospital, as he wished to observe, that although it might be the opinion of the medical men of Southampton that the situation was salubrious, the medical men of other districts might entertain a different opinion, and think that, though it was a salubrious place, it was not the most salubrious. But as these reports had been very extensively circulated, and were likely to be productive of very great injury to the patients, through the fears which such reports excited, he would venture to suggest to the Government that it would be by no means a bad thing if they sent down certain of their military physicians to make a report as to the salubrity of the site in question.
  MR. TITEwas understood to state that the system of ventilation introduced at Guy's Hospital had been found to answer exceedingly well.
  GENERAL WYNDHAMsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the Government to the injustice which he conceived was done to those officers who were compulsorily placed on half pay. It was the system at present to put them on the regiment again at the bottom of the list; whereas he thought it would be no more than fair that those who had served and been forced into half pay against their will should be replaced in the regiment in the same position they would have filled had they continued in the service.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he wished to observe, with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Vivian), that well-digging was a distinct calling, and was not unattended with danger to those who did not understand it.

  2047
  He thought, therefore, that it was quite right that the task of forming them should be entrusted to the sappers and miners. With regard to the classes for instruction in military surveying, there were already twelve officers at Aldershot engaged in teaching that, but he would recommend the Under Secretary for War to increase their number, as the applications for instruction in that branch of education were more numerous than could be attended to. The suggestion to establish a camp at Aldershot proceeded from the late Lord Hardinge, who thought it was a very good position from which to despatch troops to various parts of the coast in case of attack.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know if the civil establishments of the army were under regulation or not. On the 6th of June, 1855, an Order in Council for regulating them was adopted, and laid upon the table of the House; but he had some reason to believe that that scheme had been revoked and another substituted for it by another Order in Council which had never been furnished to the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhad heard much of the great difficulties connected with the civil departments of the army. Those difficulties, he understood, arose from the circumstance that there was no definition of the responsibility which rested upon the heads of the different departments; and there were no means by which the House could ascertain who was responsible for the performance of the duties of the several establishments connected with the civil service of the army. He hoped that before long the noble Lord would be in a position to furnish the House with the details of the contemplated scheme, so that hon. Members who took an interest in the service might know upon whom the responsibility for those establishments rested.
  Subject dropped.

THE NATIONAL SURVEY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he intended to raise a discussion on the following propositions:—
  "1. That the Survey of Scotland, on the scale of twenty-five inches to the mile, be discontinued;
  "2. That the Survey of Scotland be carried on, as it has been in Ireland, the Northern portion of England, and a large portion of Scotland,
  2048
  on a scale of six inches to the mile, and that it be engraved on that scale:
  "3. That a Map of Scotland, on a scale of one inch to the mile, be also reduced from the six inch map for engraving and publication."
  Owing, however, to the forms of the House, the Motion with which he should conclude, would be, that the Vote be reduced by £36,000. Hon. Members should understand that they were about to vote to-night on the question whether the 25-inch survey for Scotland should or should not be continued. This was a most important question; it was a question involving no one knew how many millions of money; and yet it had never been adequately discussed in that House. The original design was to survey the whole of the United Kingdom on the scale of six inches to the mile, and to publish also for general purposes a map of the scale of one inch. In 1851 some Scotch gentlemen thought fit to be dissatisfied, and they moved for a Committee. The result was a recommendation that the six-inch survey should be discontinued. That produced great dissatisfaction, and a list of questions were sent out, to which 130 answers were received in favour of a map on a scale as large as possible, and thirty-eight in favour of a smaller scale. The Government then appointed three gentlemen to report on the subject, and they appeared to have formed their opinions by counting the number of answers on either side; but in point of fact the opinion of one practical man who had used, and could speak from experience of, the 6-inch map, was worth that of fifty or a hundred who had no practical knowledge of the subject. In 1856 there was a discussion in Committee of Supply on the question; but no notice was given, and there was no trace of any division in the journals of the House. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) estimated that the 25-inch survey would entail upon the country a charge of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, adding that he doubted whether a tenth part of those who had voted on the subject knew what the question was, or the extent of the expenditure into which they were plunging the country. After such a statement from so high an authority, he thought he was justified in utterly denying that the sense of the House had been properly taken upon the subject. He believed that no country in the world possessed more beautiful maps than those on the scale of six inches to the mile possessed

  2049
  by parts of Scotland. The Irish maps on the same scale bore no comparison to them in point of clearness and of use. They showed every ditch, the smallest fence, every bridge, every stream, marked out the garden walks in a gentleman's domains, and actually gave the position of the pumps; and yet the Scotch gentlemen were not satisfied with maps of this accuracy and minuteness, but asked for others on a scale of twenty-five inches. Now, he could conceive nothing more monstrous than a proposition of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred the consideration of this question to a Committee, and nine members had voted for the 25-inch survey. On this Committee of fifteen there were no fewer than ten Scotchmen, while there were only five English Members, one of whom (Captain Laffan) was unable to attend in consequence of official duties, and of the nine Members who had voted for the Report, eight were Scotch Members. Now, he challenged the composition of this Committee as being most unfair, and he could by no means understand how it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government should think it a matter of duty to adhere to their decision. The thing was altogether so absurd that he was surprised the noble Lord below him (Lord Elcho) should refer to the Report of this Committee for the guidance of the House. He had a high opinion of the personal honour of the Scotch, but surely, in considering a question involving to such an extent their own interest, there ought to have been more than five English Members upon this Committee. He (Sir D. Norreys) therefore called upon the House to intercept this vast expenditure. Colonel Hall, who for many years was the director of the survey, said the time and cost attending the 24-inch scale (at that time proposed) would be so enormous compared with the 12-inch scale, that he thought the larger survey ought not to be adopted unless it could be shown that great advantages would accrue there-from. The gallant officer went on to say that the estimates laid before the Committee showed that the 24-inch scale would cost 2s. per acre, and the 6-inch survey only 1s. per acre. The Irish survey at present had cost about —946,000—that is in round numbers a million—but as not more than four-fifths of it had been completed, its total cost would probably be £1,200,000. Scotland, upon the same
  2050
  scale, would cost as much, but upon the 25-inch scale, if they took Colonel Hall's calculation of 2s. an acre, the expense would certainly be notless than £2,000,000. But if Scotland were to have a beautiful map on that large scale, England would, no doubt, demand a similar map, the cost of which would be about £4,000,000; and Ireland, of course, would not be satisfied, unless she also had a survey made upon the same enormous scale. He now approached the most difficult part of his task, which was to prove that Scotch gentlemen did not know their own interests. He held that, as a general rule, a great map was a great evil, and that if you could get what you wanted on a small scale it was infinitely preferable to a largo one. For example, the 6-inch maps which had been published contained 15,360 acres on a sheet, laid down with such accuracy that an estate could be measured on them with the utmost nicety. A gentleman, therefore, with an estate of 4,000 or 5,000 acres in extent, the usual size of a moderate estate in Scotland, would find the whole of it upon one sheet; but if the 25-inch scale were adopted a sheet would not contain above 800 or 900 acres, and as by some ill-fortune the boundaries of property were sure to fall irregularly, he would have to purchase seven or eight sheets in order to have a complete map of his estate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer usually so measured in his language, had said, that upon that scale the map of Scotland would be about as large as Westminster Hall. That would be the standard map; but as it would be utterly useless for most practical purposes on account of its immense size, it was proposed to reduce it by mechanical means to a scale of six inches to the mile, and that again was further to be mechanically reduced to a scale of one inch to the mile. Professional men, however, agreed that no map could be perfect unless it were laid down directly from the field-books of the surveyors; so that in the case of Scotland there would be the standard map, too large and cumbrous to be of practical utility, and two smaller maps, which would not be correct owing to the difficulty of reducing with perfect accuracy by mechanical means made from the original survey. The Committee of 1856 suggested that a map on the large scale would be useful for the registration of titles. He contended that a 6-inch map would be abundantly sufficient for this purpose. He stated this on the authority of Mr.

  2051
  Griffiths, the director-general of the Irish survey, and Mr. John M' Neil, an eminent civil engineer, who had told him (Sir D. Norreys) the other day that he had laid out hundreds of miles of railway by the 6-inch map, and that he had made two purchases of estates, one to the extent of £8,000 and another of £3,000, in which he had been entirely guided by the 6-inch map, which was more accurate than the local surveys. Then there was the case of valuations. But Mr. Griffiths's evidence was, that all his valuations, down to half an acre, were made upon the 6-inch map. Below half an acre he did not like to go, in consequence of the shrinking of the paper on which the maps had been printed. Another advantage expected was the adjustment of civil and ecclesiastical boundaries. It could not be affirmed that the 6-inch scale was not accurate enough for this purpose, or for inclosures of waste lands, for it had been extensively used for such purposes in Ireland. Another point was for sanitary purposes. What this meant he (Sir D. Norreys) did not know. The same might be said of the next head, that of statistics. Then there came Parliamentary purposes—railways. Why, every engineer in Ireland had said six inches were amply sufficient for his purposes; and it was received as such by Committees of the House. Then there was geology. Every one was in favour of the country possessing a good geological survey; but what did Sir Roderick Murchison say—the person who directed the survey? "For Heaven's sake, give me a 6-inch survey; I can do nothing with the 25-inch map." Then came another object for which the 25-inch map was supposed to be useful—military and purely scientific purposes. This heading was equally unintelligible, or at least he was not aware what objects for statistical and military and scientific purposes could be attained by a 25-inch map which would not be as well attained by a 6-inch map. Another question was, whether so large a map as a 25-inch map was required for the registration of titles. The whole tenor of the Report of the Commissioners was unfavourable to the employment of maps as absolutely necessary for purposes of registration of title, on the contrary, they looked upon them as mere accessories; and that opinion was founded upon the evidence of men of experience like Mr. Vincent Scully, Mr.
  2052
  Brewster, and other gentlemen who possessed considerable knowledge of the subject. How could any map be properly said to be connected with registration unless a copy was appended to the deed of purchase? Now, the map on the 25-inch scale would be too small to be useful in that respect for small properties, while it would be too large for large estates. The plain fact was, that to attempt to make a national map on any scale which should be available for all purposes was simply an impossibility. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) would no doubt this evening say, as he had said on a previous occasion, that he could understand the House objecting to any survey, but that he could not understand its agreeing to an imperfect survey. Now, an antithesis like that very often produced an effect in that House, but he would ask the House to consider what was really meant by the expression a perfect map, because no map could be perfect for all purposes. A high authority, the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson), although a Member of the Committee, said he did not agree with one word of the Report of the Committee of 1856, but that he was unable to attend to oppose it through indisposition. In an outlay involving so many millions he thought the House ought not to throw overboard such an opinion as that of the hon. Member for Whitby, and he trusted that they would not sanction such a monstrous expenditure in order to give the Scotch gentlemen a plan of their estates, which would, after all, be found a very inconvenient one. Let them follow the advice that had been given them by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) and intercept this monstrous survey as soon as they could. He had taken great pains to obtain information on this subject, and he warned the House against being deluded by statements that by means of the anastatic and photographic processes they could have maps for nothing; those processes were worthless for giving accurate and correct maps, which could be used as standard maps. He hoped the House would be on its guard against all statements about these new and cheap processes. He regretted he was not able to put the Motion in the form in which it stood on the paper, but in the form of striking out a certain sum from the Vote about to be put. His first intention was to

  2053
  move to reduce the Vote by £1,000, but on further consideration he had thought it better to strike out the whole of the sum put down for the Scotch survey, so that the Government might bring on the Vote in the form of a supplementary Estimate, when hon. Members would have an opportunity of stating what scale they wished to see adopted. He would therefore move that the sum of £36,000 be struck off the Vote.
  Amendment proposed "to leave out £151,744, and insert £115,744, instead thereof."
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that so far from objecting to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he thanked him for calling attention to a subject which was of the very greatest importance. No one was more anxious than himself that the question of this Ordnance survey should be perfectly sifted, and he concurred with his hon. Friend that this ought not to be discussed as an English, Irish, or Scotch question, but as a national survey, and, as such, of general interest to the whole kingdom. He hoped he should be able to show that this survey was necessary in order to place Scotland and the northern parts of England on the same footing as Ireland. His hon. Friend found fault with the Scotch gentlemen because a few years ago a Committee recommended a 6-inch survey, and then, in 1856, a Committee, not composed exclusively of Scotch Members, recommended a 25-inch survey. His hon. Friend charged it upon the Scotch Members that they attended the Committee too regularly. Now, seeing the very great interest his hon. Friend took in this matter, he regretted that he had not attended on many previous occasions, and more especially when the Report of the Committee was discussed in the last Session of Parliament. A great portion of the expense had now been incurred, and after a number of the Scotch counties had been surveyed his hon. Friend rushed in and attempted to induce the House to change its determination. But he (Viscount Duncan) trusted that the House would hesitate before they adopted the suggestions of the hon. Baronet, as the effect would be to plunge them into a mass of confusion with regard to these surveys. The survey of the United Kingdom was commenced in 1784 on a scale of two inches to a mile, the survey being published on a scale of one inch to a mile. That survey was continued from 1784 to 1828, when it was
  2054
  suddenly interrupted by the appointment of an Irish Committee, of which Lord Monteagle was the chairman, who recommended that the survey of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland should be stopped, that a new survey should be commenced in Ireland, and that it should be on a scale of six inches to a mile. The result of that Committee was that the survey in Scotland was actually stopped from 1829 to 1840, during which period the Irish survey was conducted, and very properly conducted, on the 6-inch scale. Ireland was divided into about 60,000 town-lands, and it was thought that the 6-inch scale would be best adapted to the wants of that country. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that the experiment in Ireland was eminently successful, and the Commissioners who sat on the subject of the registration of titles spoke of the 6-inch survey as one of the most valuable practical measures ever carried out in that country. When Ireland was completed, the survey was resumed in Great Britain, and it had been continued not only in Scotland, but also in the northern counties of England. The whole county of Durham and parts of Northumberland had been surveyed on the 25-inch scale, as well as most of the cultivated districts of Scotland, Cumberland and Westmoreland had also been drawn on the same, scale. As the 6-inch scale had proved to be so well adapted to the town-lands of Ireland, so the 25-inch scale was deemed well adapted to the parishes of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman bad sought to alarm the House in respect to what he called "gigantic maps;" but the fact was that the survey on the 25-inch scale had been confined to the cultivated districts; the uncultivated parts of Scotland were to be surveyed on the 6-inch plan, and the maps were to be published on the scale of one inch. Practical surveyors knew that although a scale might easily be reduced it could not be increased. In this case the large scale was used merely for the purpose of the survey. The engraved map would be on the 1-inch scale, and it was being produced as speedily as possible. It never bad been intended to engrave on the 25-inch scale; but it had been ascertained that when the survey was once taken the drawn plans could be easily reproduced by the anastatic process, and the sale of thirty copies would repay the whole expense. The sale commenced only five months ago in

  2055
  Linlitligowshire, and seven copies of the 25-inch maps had already been sold in that county. The history of the Scotch survey was somewhat singular. When the Irish survey had been finished the survey of the southern counties of Scotland was commenced on the 6-inch scale, and six or seven counties had been completed when a Committee was appointed to consider whether the map should be published on the 6-inch or the 1-inch scale. The Committee reported against the 6-inch scale, and orders were afterwards issued to reduce it to one inch; but in 1852 representations were made by the Royal burghs, and by the mining and other interests, praying for a return to the 6-inch plan. Lord Derby's Government gave directions that the county of Fife (then in course of being surveyed) should be conducted on the 6-inch scale. This continued up to 1853, when the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) filled the office which he (Lord Duncan) now held. That noble Lord, who deserved great credit for his endeavours to supply what every other country in Europe possessed—namely, a survey on the scale that would be the most generally useful, issued a circular to various scientific bodies, inviting opinions as to the best scale to adopt for a national survey. The answer given in the large majority of instances was favourable to the 25-inch scale. Sir J. Burgoyne, Mr. Rendell, and Mr. Blamire were then employed by the Government as a Commission to investigate the subject, and they reported unanimously to the same effect. Experiments were then made in Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire upon the 25-inch scale, and they proved highly satisfactory. He (Lord Duncan) then succeeded to his present situation, when he brought the whole matter before the House, and another Committee was appointed. Seven members of that Committee voted in support of the 25-inch scale, and only two against it. The entire question was subsequently discussed in a pretty full House, and the Report of the Committee was approved by a majority of ninety-one. The estimate of the present survey of Scotland, which Colonel James laid before the Committee, was £300,000 less than the Irish survey had cost, and that gentleman now found that his estimate was higher than the actual cost, for the survey was proceeding at a cost of 11¼d. per acre in the cultivated districts, and 6½d. in the uncultivated
  2056
  districts, whereas his estimate was 1s. and 7d. respectively. The Scotch survey would cost altogether £989,000. It was estimated that the engraving would cost 1d. per acre, but the actual cost was only ¾d. The survey during the last year had given great satisfaction—1,400,000 acres having been actually surveyed on the 25-inch scale during that period. In fact, the greater part of the cultivated portions of Scotland had been surveyed, and he had received communications to the effect that the landowners were quite satisfied with the mode of the survey. The whole of the district between the Tay and the Clyde had been surveyed, and he submitted that it was not worth while, now that the uncultivated portions only remained to be surveyed, to interrupt the survey. The interruptions which had already been made in the survey of Scotland had rendered useless at least £50,000 of the money already expended. If the hon. Baronet's motive in objecting to the present survey was economy, he could assure him that the public would not gain much if he succeeded in his object, because the difference between a survey on a 6-inch scale and a 25-inch scale was only about £50,000. The 1-inch scale had not been found to be very successful in England. The Tithes Commutation Commission desired to have a more correct map, and expended £2,000,000 upon a survey like that now being carried on in Scotland. He hoped, therefore, that, for the sake of economy and public utility, the House would now determine once for all that the survey of Scotland should be completed uninterruptedly on a 25-inch scale. Imputations had been cast on the proprietors of land in Scotland in connexion with this survey. It was said that their object was to get their estates surveyed at the public expense on a scale so large that it would serve their own purposes. But those imputations were unfounded. Many of the Scotch proprietors had already surveyed their estates at their own expense. It was only from a belief that the 25-inch scale would be for the benefit of the public that the Committee had recommended it, and he trusted that the House would adhere to the decision to which it had already come.
  SIR, WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought that the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for having introduced this subject

  2057
  at a very opportune moment. He regretted, however, that he could not support the hon. Baronet's Motion either as it was upon that paper or in the shape it was forced to assume according to the forms of the House. He did not object to Scotland being surveyed as satisfactorily as the other portions of the United Kingdom, but he did object to Scotland being surveyed on a scale that would not prove to be satisfactory to the country, and such he thought a 25-inch scale survey would be, notwithstanding the arguments of the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) opposite. He was anxious that the whole of the United Kingdom should be surveyed in the most economical manner and upon the most efficient scale. The 6-inch maps had been found sufficient for the purposes of tithe commutation and for poor-rate valuations, as also, he believed, for what they were threatened with—the registration of property. The fact was, however, that notwithstanding £2,000,000 of money had been spent in England, they were still where they were in 1784, and might be called upon to-morrow to spend another £2,000,000 for registration purposes. Under these circumstances he would press upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the necessity of changing the present system of survey. The populous and cultivated districts of Scotland had been surveyed, but he hoped the Highlands would not be finished before Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Somersetshire, and other places. They ought not to survey the Hebrides in preference to such districts. The island of Lewis had been surveyed, though he believed the gentleman to whom it belonged had paid the whole or a portion of the expense; but whether this was so or not, he thought it a dereliction of duty to let Lanarkshire wait until Lewis was surveyed. The principle ought to be adopted of first attending to those districts in which the demand for maps was likely to be greatest. It would be instructive, for the purpose of showing the relative value of the survey, if the noble Lord would lay upon the table a return of the sale of maps in the populous districts and the sale in the island of Lewis. The 6-inch scale had been found sufficient for Lancashire and Ireland, and he hoped the Government would speedily give us the same useful survey of all England.
  THE EARL OF GIFFORDsaid, that he would support the Motion of the hon.
  2058
  Member for Mallow, for the purpose of getting rid of the 25-inch scale, but not for the purpose of putting the 6-inch scale in its place. He had read the two bluebooks published on this subject, and he had come to the conclusion that this 25-inch scale ought never to have been commenced, and that the sooner it was abandoned the better. No doubt it would be very beneficial to the landlords of Scotland, but if they wanted a map upon this scale they ought to pay for it themselves. All practical and scientific men united in agreeing that a map upon such an immense scale was of no use whatever to the public at large, whether for geographical, geological, or any other purposes. He had calculated that the map of Scotland taken upon the 25-inch scale would be 250 yards long, would require a very extensive field to contain it, and a large telescope to inspect it and read the names at the other end of it. He would ask the House to compare the rapid and efficient system of surveying carried on in India with our comparatively slow and unsatisfactory progress at home, as instanced by the case of the Punjab, the survey of which, for revenue purposes, was conducted in the most rapid manner, after its annexation, by his friend Colonel Waugh, the present Surveyor General of India, and it was now almost completed. It was said that it would be easy to reduce a map on the 25-inch scale to another on the 1-inch scale, but if all this time were occupied in making the original map, and then another must be produced before the public could use it, at the present rate of progress none of them were likely to live long enough to see the completion of the Scotch survey. He hoped that the hon. Member for Mallow would press his Motion to a division, in order that they might see whether an end could not be put to this job—for so he must characterize it—this reckless expenditure of the public money, which, however advantageous it might be to the landowners of Scotland, who were alone interested in it, could be of no earthly use to the tax-paying public of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) need not have made any apology for not being a practical man, because no one could have brought forward the more salient points of his case in a more lucid manner than the noble Lord had done. The noble Lord warned

  2059
  the House against departing from the present system of survey, and said that the very raising of this question would cost something like £50,000 to the country. Well, that was a staggering assertion, and one that made them inquire as to how such a result could happen. The noble Lord had given a general history of the survey of this country, and he said that England had remained quiet, and had accepted the survey of her counties on a 1-inch scale. But in 1828 in rushed Ireland, and not being content to be treated in the same way as England, she got a survey on a 6-inch scale, which was said to answer admirably there, and he had heard that it was a very useful one. After Ireland had succeeded, Scotland went in for a 6-inch scale, but some evil genius arose and said that as Ireland had got the 6-inch scale, Scotland should have an increase from a 6-inch to a 25-inch scale. This it was that led to discussions in that House and the loss of £50,000 to which the noble Lord had alluded, but that was because the Scotch gentlemen were not content with a 6-inch scale. Among other objections which were made to the 25-inch scale, it was said by the noble Lord (Earl Gifford) that it never would be completed, and that was certainly an inconvenience. With regard to the expense, the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) said that the estimate of the expense made by Colonel James was so accurate, that whereas the estimate was 1s. an acre, the survey had been executed for 11 d. and a fraction, and in the districts in which the 6-inch scale was adopted the expense had been calculated at 7d. an acre, it had been executed at 6d. and a fraction. There seemed to be some confusion here in the noble Lord's figures which required explanation.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, what he stated was this, that the cultivated districts would cost 11 d. and a fraction an acre on the 25-inch scale, and the uncultivated districts would cost 6d. and a fraction an acre on the 6-inch scale, which would be the only one applied to uncultivated lands. He then struck an average between the survey of the cultivated and the uncultivated lands, and observed that there would be only a penny difference between the two kinds of surveys.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that averages were always very deceitful. He could hardly believe that if the whole of Scotland was surveyed on the 6-inch scale, it would only
  2060
  cost a penny an acre less than the 25-inch scale. The noble Lord said that in Ireland the 6-inch survey had cost £1,100,000, while that of Scotland would only cost £900,000; but the noble Lord did not state the relative amount of acreage. He (Mr. Henley) had always thought the survey on a 25-inch scale a wasteful expenditure of money. He wished that an opportunity had been given of voting on this Estimate in Committee of Supply; but as the hon. Member for Mallow had taken a course in order to get the Vote reconsidered, he should be glad to vote for his Motion, for he could not see that any Scotchman had shown that any such advantage to Scotland would be derived from it, as to compensate for so great an inequality in the survey of the United Kingdom. Moreover, if it did really derive any superior advantages from the 25-inch scale, England and Ireland would no doubt ultimately demand the same, and it would be impossible to calculate the enormous amount of expenditure to which the country would ultimately be put.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that having been directly alluded to by the hon. Baronet who brought forward the Motion, and also by another hon. Member, who used the word "job," as if those who had been connected with the subject had been jobbing for the proprietors of Scotland, he wished to say a few words to explain the circumstances under which the 25-inch survey took its rise. This survey was commenced when he was a Lord of the Treasury in Lord Aberdeen's Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing that he had been Chairman of the Committee in 1851, referred papers to him, with a request that he would draw up a memorandum on the subject. The only question which the Committee of 1851 had to decide was whether the survey should be on the 6-inch or 1-inch scale, and the decision of that Committee completely exonerated him from the grave charge of jobbing for the proprietors of Scotland, with a view of getting a large map or plan of their estates at the national expense, for the Committee, composed of eleven Scotchmen and four other members, came unanimously to the decision that the 6-inch scale adopted in Ireland was so excessive and extravagant compared with the benefits likely to accrue,

  2061
  that they recommended that that 6-inch scale should be abandoned, and the 1-inch scale alone proceeded with. The result was, that the counties of Scotland not surveyed on the 6-inch scale thought it extremely hard the benefit conferred on Ireland, and also on a large portion of Scotland, should not be extended to them, and fifty-nine memorials from public bodies were presented to the Government urging the concession of the larger scale. The Government of the Earl of Derby partially acceded to the memorial and directed the counties of Haddington and Fife to be surveyed on the 6-inch scale. When the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen came into office they were in this difficulty—there was a Resolution of the Committee disapproving of the 6-inch scale, and the Government of the Earl of Derby yielding to the memorial of the Scotch landowners, and directing a partial survey upon that scale. What, then, were they to do? The question being referred to him by Lord Aberdeen's Government, he drew up a memorandum stating the whole history of the matter, which was to be found in the blue-book laid before Parliament His own opinion of the soundness of the recommendation remained unchanged, but from the pressure placed upon the Government by the counties of Scotland, and from the difficulty which they felt of refusing to all what had been conceded to some counties, he was unable to recommend the Government to carry out the recommendation of the Committee of 1851. Under these circumstances, he determined to apply to Colonel Dawson upon the subject—a most able and efficient member of the engineer corps, and one who had the greatest experience in matters of this description. He (Colonel Dawson) stated it as his opinion that the 6-inch scale adopted in Ireland, whatever might be its value there, was practically useless for England and Scotland, and recommended the course to be adopted, which, in his opinion, ought to have been adopted long ago, namely, to have a survey upon a much larger scale. The Law Amendment Society in the same way recommended a survey on a large scale, with the view to introduce a more simple and efficient system of conveyance of land. Lord Langdale also suggested the same course to be adopted. But for the purpose of obtaining the best information upon the subject that he could, he determined to communicate with the learned societies and various bodies
  2062
  which were likely to be well informed, and with the most distinguished members of the profession throughout the country. A series of questions were accordingly drawn up and forwarded to these parties. He received 152 replies, of which thirty-two were in favour of the 6-inch scale, and 120 proposed a larger scale, varying from 24 inches to 26¾ inches—the latter scale being that adopted by surveyors when valuing for property purposes. The weight of the opinion of these learned bodies and gentlemen had been questioned by the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) but he thought the House would be satisfied, when he read some of the names, that their opinions were entitled to the greatest weight. Among those who were in favour of the larger scale were the Registrar General, the Tithe Commissioners, Sir H. de la Beche, Mr. Brunel, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Locke, Mr. Ramsay, the President of the Geological Society, the Poor Law Board, Earl Rosse, the Astronomer Royal of Edinburgh, the General Board of Health, the Statistical Society, &c. The Law Magazine, which might fairly be supposed to represent the general public, and not the Scotch landed proprietors, strongly approved of the course taken by the Treasury, and the conclusion at which they had arrived. He would not trouble the House by reading the voluminous reports given in favour of the larger scale, as they were all contained in the blue-book, but which he was afraid, from an observation let fall by the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys), that he had not read. Well, what had been the course pursued by the Government? They had appointed a second Committee which had reported in favour of the 25-inch scale. The Treasury had adopted the recommendation of the Committee, and he trusted the House would not that evening reverse the decision at which the Treasury had arrived. He could understand the course which was taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice), who said there ought not to be more than an inch survey, but he must confess he was totally at a loss to understand upon what principle the hon. Baronet the Member for Malton proceeded, inasmuch as every one of the objections which applied to a 25-inch scale were equally applicable to one of six inches, while the latter had scarcely any of the advantages which the former possessed. He had found in the library a volume constructed upon the 6-inch scale, from an

  2063
  inspection of which any hon. Member might see that the moment a departure from the 1-inch scale took place it was no longer a map but a plan which was produced. He might add that in the opinion of the most competent engineers the 6-inch scale was too small for a property plan and too large for a map. He might also observe that the Tithe Commissioners recommended the adoption of the large in preference to the 6-inch scale. The origin of the adoption of the latter scale was not because it was the best for all purposes, but because it was adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. But what was the evidence of Irishmen themselves upon that subject? Sir J. M' Neill, in giving evidence before the Select Committee which had sat in 1851 in favour of the 6-inch scale, had expressed his regret that a larger scale had not been adopted in Ireland. All he (Lord Elcho) asked the House was not to give its assent to the adoption of a scale which was suited only to special purposes, but to adhere to one which would be found useful for all time and for every purpose. The question, in short, resolved itself into the old story of "Brown Bess" and the Enfield rifle, and would, he trusted, be disposed of in a similar manner. When the latter weapon was introduced there were letters from all quarters in favour of "Brown Bess," and it was urged that it had won the battle of Talavera; but fortunately those counsels were not attended to, and the superiority of the rifle as a national weapon for all purposes was now abundantly recognized. He should observe, in reference to the Estimates of Colonel Hall, that they were merely theoretical, while those of Colonel James were of a practical character. These Estimates confirmed the estimates of Colonel Hall, and established the fact that this survey, instead of 2s. might be done for 1s. an acre. The question, therefore, was whether the House would not pay a little more to have a really good and efficient survey, instead of the inefficient survey of the Irish scale? As to the relative cost, he had the authority of the Superintendent of the survey for stating that the difference would not be more than £50,000. He had the same authority for stating that if this survey were extended to England it would cost £1,500,000. The Scotch survey was commenced in 1809, and the Irish survey in 1824. It must be remembered that for the sake
  2064
  of the Irish survey the Scotch survey had been stopped for fifteen years, and the Scotch were, therefore, now justified in asking the House to finish their survey before they went back to Ireland. The survey in England was originally a general survey for military purposes, and was progressing from the southern to the northern counties when it was interrupted by the Irish 6-inch survey. Thus, the six northern English counties were still unsurveyed. The fault he found with the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow was that it did not go to the bottom of the subject, for he (Lord Elcho) thought that it had been brought forward in ignorance that the English survey was now proceeded with on the 25-inch scale. It said not a word about the survey of England, and if the Resolution were agreed to the 25-inch survey would be stopped in Scotland, and might go on in England. In adopting the 25-inch scale, this country was only following the example set by the Continent during the last forty or fifty years. He trusted, therefore, that the House would sanction the continuance of a system which would be of the greatest public benefit, and which would enable transfers of property to take place from the map. He asked the House to believe that those who were responsible for the 25-inch survey had been actuated by no other motive than an anxious desire to do what was best for the public. This scale had been in operation in France for many years, where it had first been projected in 1793, and it was also in use in Wirtemberg, Bavaria, and the Continent generally, while in 1853, a statistical congress assembled at Brussels, which resolved that a survey of twenty-five inches to a mile was the smallest survey for national purposes that could be adopted with advantage. He held in his hand a blue-book containing a paper by Mr. Vignolles, the celebrated engineer, who enumerated eighteen purposes to which a survey on the large scale could be applied. Mr. Vignolles said that most of the countries of Europe had paid attention to the subject of national surveys and possessed detailed maps, constituting the basis upon which all proceedings were taken in respect to landed property and assessments for local and general purposes. The large scale of survey had met with the sanction of the most intelligent and scientific public bodies in the kingdom. It had been sanctioned by a Committee of the House of Commons, and last Session it had been

  2065
  sanctioned by the House itself, by a majority of 91 votes.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, that discussing such a question as this on the report of supply was very much like locking the stable door after the steed was stolen. If he had seen a way of stopping the expenditure on this large scale he should have been glad to do so; but as he had heard from the noble Lord that if the expenditure were suddenly stopped we should be involved in further difficulties, he should have great hesitation in the vote he should give. He happened to have been a member of the Committee of 1851, which resolved to stop the 6-inch scale and to adopt the 1-inch scale. He believed that the agitation in favour of the 25-inch survey, which had led to all the confusion that had arisen since the Report of that Committee on this question, had been very much got up by the officers of the Ordnance Department, whose opinions were not adopted on that occasion, and he thought it scarcely becoming in the officers of a public department to set aside the authority of a Committee of that House, and the proceedings of the Treasury founded on the Report of that Committee. In answer to a circular which had been sent to him, in common with other professional men, he had expressed the opinion that for such local purposes as drainage, transfer of land, tithe commutation, poor law assessment, &c a survey on a scale of twenty inches would suffice; but that, as to engraving for publication, he did not see the necessity for anything more costly than a 1-inch map. To that opinion he still adhered. No doubt, if the owner of a field wished to lay out his land for buildings, he must have it surveyed on a large scale; but the question was, "Ought the public to go to the expense of providing such a survey for him?" It was with a survey for general, and not for special purposes, that that House had alone to do; and there was not a man connected with his profession who did not feel that a 1-inch map was the best they could have for the general public. It was proved before the Committee that the 1-inch survey for Scotland would cost only £250,000, whereas the expense of the 6-inch scale would be £850,000. Another advantage of the 1-inch survey, besides its cheapness, was that it could be finished in much less time. He believed that no man now living would see the completion of the
  2066
  Scotch survey on its present scale. There were two modes of executing these surveys. The one was by marking on the maps fixed points, such as the crossing of roads, the confluence of streams, the passage over particular mountains, &c. The other was by what was called "contouring"—a very difficult and expensive system. The hon. Member here explained the process of contouring, as applied to the survey of mountains, and quoted the authority of Lieutenant Colonel Dawson to prove that it was impossible to make contour maps accurate, and that, even if accurate, they would be useless. He wished to ask, was this contouring to proceed, or was it not? If it were to proceed, what limit was the Government to fix upon its cost? Unless they knew what it would cost, they ought to stop it at once. He (Mr. Locke) was entirely in favour of maps with fixed levels, and, like Colonel Dawson, decidedly opposed to the system of contouring. They had the cadastral maps of France and other States paraded before them, but none of those countries had maps on the scale of twenty-five inches to the mile; in fact, France had not a map published equal to our own one inch one. He also wished to know distinctly whether or not all the engraved maps were to be confined to the 1-inch scale?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought it very desirable that the House should understand the precise question which it had to decide. The Motion originally placed on the table by the hon. Baronet was clear and intelligible. Now, however, by proposing to reduce the Estimate by the amount asked for the Scotch survey, he had left the House in the greatest possible uncertainty as to what was to be done on this subject. If they were to have a national survey at all, surely the wisest course was to have it executed on the plan best adapted to their objects, provided they could afford the expense. But the very worst plan of all was one which was constantly changing, and by which what they built up in one year they pulled down the next, thereby incurring an expenditure which was wholly profitless. The hon. Baronet who introduced the discussion eulogized the 6-inch scale, as applied to Ireland, and treated the 1-inch scale with contempt. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, however, pronounced as strongly against the 6-inch scale as against the 25-inch. The question they had to determine was not the abstract merits of different

  2067
  scales, but what was best to be done to finish a survey which was now in progress, and on which a considerable outlay had already been incurred? Of the cultivated districts of Scotland two-thirds had already been surveyed, some upon the 6-inch, and some upon the 25-inch scale. With regard to the expense involved, the most extraordinary statements had gone forth. It had been said that it would cost three, four, or five millions sterling; but the fact was, that it would not come to so much as the Irish survey; the latter having cost £1,290,000, whilst the former would not exceed the sum of £1,000,000. In some respects, too, a 1-inch scale was more expensive than a 25-inch scale, because on the former skilled persons had to be employed, whereas on the latter, which was inferior work, inferior workmen and boys could be employed with perfect safety. His noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) had scattered to the winds the unjust imputation that a 25-inch scale was desired by the Scotch proprietors, in order that they might obtain maps of their estates at the public expense. Besides, this imputation betrayed the ignorance of those who used it, as to what the survey was. It was never meant for a map, and therefore this imputation could not apply. Some hon. Gentlemen had talked of a 25-inch scale as an enormity and an absurdity, but France, Bavaria, and Belgium had been surveyed on that scale. The 25-inch scale was never meant for a map. One inch was the proper scale for a map; but nothing less than a 25-inch scale survey could show the details of a country. It was said that, although continental countries had made 25-inch scale surveys, yet they were never published. That was true; the expense would be too great. But copies of those surveys might be obtained at a very trifling expense by the anastatic process. The Ordnance survey of England had been taken upon a scale so minute that the Tithe Commutation Commissioners found it was useless for their purposes; and, in addition to the £2,000,000 which they had expended on a survey upon a scale of 26¾ inches, £1,500,000 had been expended by the Enclosure Commissioners. He believed that much money would have been saved by the railway proprietors in this country if there had been an Ordnance survey of it upon a large scale some years ago. The hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) had stated, in a tone of indignation, that all the Members who had sat upon the
  2068
  Scotch survey question were Scotchmen; but he appeared to have forgotten that Lord Monteagle (then Mr. Spring Rice) presided over a Committee comprizing fourteen Irish Members with reference to the Irish survey. It should be remembered, at the same time, that this survey originated with a Committee of the House. Even the 6-inch survey of Ireland was described in the Parliamentary Report as one of the most useful acts of practical legislation which had ever been effected for that country. This survey having been completed, then came the Scotch and English surveys; and perhaps it might not be known to some hon. Members, that the survey of England went on with that of Scotland, and at a rather quicker pace. The scale in the two countries varied together from the 6-inch to the 25-inch scale, and 9,349 miles of England had been surveyed, 1,407 of them being on the 25-inch scale, while only 8,000 miles had been surveyed in Scotland. The real question for the House to consider was, whether they would pursue a retrograde course on this question. The staff of surveyors was now at work; all the preparations were made for continuing the Scotch survey on the 25-inch scale, which would admit of the most minute admeasurements, and he asked the House whether it would be worth while once more to change the system adopted for the sake, of saving some £50,000, the work which would then be produced being one which would not be creditable to the country. He trusted the House would look upon this as a national question. If there was to be a survey at all, let it be the best they could procure, and he believed that the money would be found well spent.
  COLONEL BOLDEROwished to remind the hon. Member that the map on the large scale which he mentioned, for England, had been defrayed out of the pockets of private gentlemen. As for the opinion of Colonel Dawson, one of the best surveyors, no doubt, in England, that gentleman spoke rather as a tithe commissioner than as an engineer. On the contrary, all the engineers disapproved of a map on this immense scale, and Colonel Dawson stood alone. The reason for applying the 6-inch scale to Ireland was, the unsatisfactory condition, of that country at the time. It was over populated, and the gentry dare not survey their own estates for fear of exciting the suspicion of the peasantry; therefore the Government stepped in, and

  2069
  surveyed the whole. That survey of Ireland was, he believed, one of the most useful, perfect, and complete which any kingdom in the world possessed; and even as regards the Ordnance survey of England, he must remind hon. Members who spoke against it, that engineers were now content to walk a hundred miles over the ground with an Ordnance map in their hand, and to come afterwards before them in Committee to give their opinion. That showed the usefulness of the map.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, he would not discuss the question whether Scotland was to have an estate plan or not, but if the House thought proper to provide, at the public expense, detailed maps of all the estates in Scotland, he had no doubt Scotchmen would be very glad to avail themselves of those maps. The inevitable consequence of such a decision must, however, be the extension of the same system to England and to Ireland, which, according to Sir C. Trevelyan, would involve an expenditure of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, although he (Mr. Ellice) was disposed to believe that if that amount were doubled it would not be an exaggerated estimate. The Lord Advocate had stated that two-thirds of Scotland were to be surveyed upon the 6-inch scale, but he (Mr. Ellice) would ask any one acquainted with that country what possible benefit could result from surveying uncultivated and mountainous districts upon such a scale? He knew that the survey already published included the estates of his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, who was probably the only person who had purchased a copy, and that copy had been placed in a cellar, because it was so large that it was perfectly useless. He (Mr. Ellice) considered that the survey of the mountainous districts of Scotland upon a 6-inch scale involved a most unjustifiable waste of public money. The Report of the Committee of 1851, of which his noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) was Chairman, denounced the 6-inch scale, but that noble Lord was now supporting the Lord Advocate in an attempt to saddle the country with the expense of maps which could be of no possible use. If, however, the application of a 6-inch scale to the islands of Scotland was objectionable, how much more absurd was the adoption of a 25-inch scale! Yet, in defiance of the engagements which had been entered into with the House, the 25-inch scale was adopted with regard to the islands of Scotland. He was speaking
  2070
  upon the authority of a Return made by order of the House, from which he found that the island of Harris, in Inverness-shire, was being surveyed and plotted upon a scale of 25 inches to the mile. He could not conceive anything more absurd than applying a scale of 6 inches, much more 25 inches, to that island, and he thought the House was justified in complaining that its wishes had not been carried out by the Treasury. The survey of Scotland seemed to be in a state of utter confusion, and he thought the best course would be either to prepare a map on a 1-inch scale, or to apply the 25-inch survey to the cultivated districts, and carry it out upon a regular system. He found that, in consequence of the diminution of the Vote, no less than 650 men who had been engaged upon the Ordnance survey, and who were trained to the work, had been discharged, and the services of about 200 more would be dispensed with at the end of this month. He thought this was injudicious, because as the survey had been commenced it ought to be completed efficiently. He would suggest that in those counties of Scotland where the survey had not been commenced it should be conducted on the scale of 2 inches to the mile, but that where it had been commenced upon the 25-inch scale it should be proceeded with only to such an extent as was necessary to furnish materials for maps upon a reduced scale of 1 inch.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Of all the difficulties which I remember the greatest would be that in which the Government would be placed if the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Sir D. Norreys) were carried. We are told that if that Motion should be agreed to it would be the duty of the Government to withdraw this estimate, to present another, and to carry into effect the wishes and opinions of the House. Now, I defy any man who has listened to this discussion to know what is the opinion and what are the wishes of the House, for almost every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has had a different opinion upon the matter in question. My hon. Friend who made the Motion condemns the 25-inch survey and the 6-inch survey, with a view to a 1-inch map, and is for a 6-inch survey and a 6-inch map. The hon. Baronet who spoke on the other side (Sir W. Jolliffe) is for a larger scale for England. My hon. Friend who last addressed the House is for nothing but a 2-inch survey and a

  2071
  1-inch map. It would be utterly impossible for any Government acting upon this debate to know what in the world they should do, and it would end in their doing nothing. The only result at which we could arrive would be to stop the survey altogether, to have no map, to leave that part of Scotland which has not yet been finished entirely unsurveyed. I must entreat the House to discard those enormous exaggerations which have been used by hon. Gentlemen who have supported this Motion. We are told that this 25-inch survey is to cost I do not know how many millions, and that if completed for that kingdom it must be applied to England, which will cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 more. It is true that if this survey succeeds in Scotland it may be wished for in England, but it cannot be carried out without the consent of this House embodied in a Vote; and, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen think that it would be an improvident application of the public money to re-survey the whole of England upon the larger scale, it is perfectly ridiculous to tell the House that that must be the necessary consequence of completing the work which is in progress in Scotland. I think it was a great misfortune and a great waste of public money that the survey of England was conducted upon so small a scale. I differ in opinion from those who think that a 1-inch map is sufficient for all purposes. It would be much better if the map of England had been on a 2-inch scale; but that is done. We are not talking about the re-survey of those parts of England which have already been surveyed. The House must remember, however, that this is not simply a Scotch question, because the northern counties of England are being surveyed upon the same scale as the cultivated parts of Scotland. Therefore, this is an English as well as a Scotch question. It is a national question, and one in which the whole country is interested. It has been admitted that the 2-inch survey with a view to a 1-inch map is totally insufficient for the populous districts of England; and there we have been obliged to have a 6-inch map. I have seen that 6-inch map, and I defy any man to say that in places where houses are thick, the divisions numerous, and the country thickly populated, that map is satisfactory for any purposes but those of a common map. If we are to have a survey of the country, surely it is best that it should be sufficient for all the purposes
  2072
  to which a survey can be applied. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Joseph Locke) asked whether we intended to publish a. 25-inch, or only a 1-inch map? Undoubtedly it is not intended to publish in the ordinary sense of the word a map on the 25-inch scale, but my hon. Friend knows that scientific improvements enable you to obtain copies of that 25-inch map at so cheap a rate that a very few purchases will repay the cost of their transference. For the purposes of the general public it is not intended to do more than to publish a map on the 1-inch scale, similar to that which has been published for England. When we are told of the space which these maps would cover, I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen whether they know of any room which is sufficiently spacious to allow the 1-inch map for England to be spread on its floor? That is no test of the utility of a map. The 25-inch map is not intended to be put together in a room or to be spread out upon a table. It is in sheets, and these sheets are available for those who want them. I should like to know what area any one would think sufficient for the spreading out of the map of Ireland. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ellice) says that it is absurd to survey and plot down the uncultivated districts of Scotland upon this 6-inch scale, but that has been done with the whole of Ireland, and there are in Ireland large districts as totally devoid of enclosures and of marked objects as are the highlands of Scotland. The island of Harris is not surveyed on the 25-inch scale. It is surveyed, as I understand on the best authority, only on the 6-inch scale. That survey is carried on in conjunction with the hydrographical survey carried on by the Admiralty both on the coast and inland, and the only portions surveyed on the large scale are the small patches to which my hon. Friend has referred. I do entreat the House not to give way to that vacillation of purpose which would be indicated by the adoption of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow. There have already been too many changes in the arrangements as to the survey of Scotland. The difference between the expense of the 25-inch survey and that of the plan which my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow recommends, is stated not to be more than £100,000 for the whole of Scotland, not more than £50,000 for what remains to be done; and will the House, for

  2073
  the sate of £50,000, mar a great national work, and deprive a large part of Scotland of the advantages which must result from the 25-inch survey? It is said that this is only for Scotland and for the landowners of Scotland. Why, what is Scotland, except a very important part of the United Kingdom? If hon. Gentlemen go on arguing that nothing is to be done at the public expense for any part of the United Kingdom, they entirely put an end to public works and reduce all our operations to parish undertakings. Let each parish pay its own expenses, and never let the public go beyond the bounds of these small divisions. If England had been surveyed upon the 25-inch scale, we should have saved the two millions of money which were spent on the maps for the tithe commutation. It is said that these maps were paid for by private individuals. Private individuals ! Why, they were paid for by all the counties and parishes of England. They were paid for by the community, and it is the same thing to those who pay whether they pay by a county rate or by a general tax.
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY: The tithe maps were not paid for out of the county rates.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I may have made a mistake as to that, but they were paid for by the owners of all the lands in the parishes, and the owners of all the lands in all the parishes in England are a pretty large portion of the community, and may, without exaggeration, be called a very important part of the public. I am told that the sums thus paid for surveys of no earthly use, except for parish objects, exceed the amount which, if properly applied, would have sufficed for the completion of a national work which would have been available for all purposes. I therefore hope that the House will not agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I may state, that it is intended to go on with the 1-inch map as soon as possible, and we hope that in a very few years we shall be able to finish the survey of Scotland, and to publish a complete 1-inch map.
  MR. TITE, who with difficulty made himself heard, said, he wished to explain that the expense which had been referred to was not the expense of the survey, but the expense of drawing, engraving, and printing maps on a large scale. The fact was, that the 6-inch scale was large enough for all practical purposes; and when they
  2074
  came to plot, to engrave, and to print upon the 25-inch scale, he believed that the estimate which had been spoken of would be enormously exceeded.
  Question put, "That £151,744 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 172: Majority 10.
  On Question that £115,744 stand part of the Resolution.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that he should take the sense of the House upon the question. As the progress of the Scotch scale would be entirely stopped by the decision to which the House had just come, it would be but fair that the English survey also should be stopped, and he thought, therefore, that the Vote should be reduced by £24,430, the amount charged in the Estimate for the expenses of the English survey for this year.
  Question put, "That £115,744 be inserted instead thereof."
  The House divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 22: Majority 208.
  LORD ELCHOwished to put before the House the position in which the question now stood. It was first decided by a majority of ten that the 25-inch scale should not be continued in Scotland. The next question that arose was, what was to be the Vote for the survey in England. An hon. Gentleman moved that the Vote for England should be reduced by a certain sum, his object being to spite England for what had been done in the case of Scotland, and the result was, that a principle which was negatived in the case of Scotland was affirmed in that of England. He had nothing further to add, except that he congratulated the House on the position in which it had placed itself.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he fully accepted the interpretation which the noble Lord had put upon the matter. He accepted the first Vote as a condemnation of the 25-inch scale, not only in Scotland but everywhere. He trusted that it would not now be carried out, either in Scotland or in England, The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had stated that the 25-inch scale was being carried out in Durham, and had taunted him with the absurdity of the course he had pursued on that account. He did not know on what authority the noble Lord made that statement; but the Ordnance map appended to the Estimate was headed thus: "Index to the Ordnance Survey of England and Wales, on the Scale

  2075
  of Six Inches to the Statute Mile." That was his justification for having voted as he had done in the last division, for had he believed that the 25-inch scale was being carried on in England he should not have opposed the Vote for the same scale in Scotland.
  MR. HENLEYbelieved that the House had intended to put a stop to the 25-inch scale for England as well as for Scotland. When it was proposed to reduce the Vote by £34,000, it was plainly stated that the effect of that Amendment being carried would be, that the Government would have to bring up an amended Estimate, and it was supposed that in that Estimate they would reduce the survey for both countries.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that he must repudiate the construction of desire to spite England, which had been put upon the Amendment he had proposed. Although it was quite true the map to which his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow referred was on the 6-inch scale, there must be some mistake, because Colonel James told him only an hour ago he had never seen it.
  MR. STEUARTwished to know in what sense the Government interpreted the two divisions which had taken place.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he would shorten the discussion by saying that the Government looked upon the first Vote at which the House had arrived as implying that the opinion of the House was, that no further surveys should be made upon the 25-inch scale. When a survey had been already made upon that scale, as he believed was the case in the county of Durham, it would, of course, remain as a matter of record; but he interpreted the Vote of the House as implying that no further survey ought to be made upon that scale.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, that the document appended to the Estimates was calculated to mislead the House. It was on the 6-inch scale, and now they were told that the gentleman who had charge of the survey knew nothing about it, although it was made under himself, and the map had his name attached. Mr. Soffit, an eminent mining engineer, declared before the Committee of which he (Mr. Ellice) was a member, that a map of twenty-five inches to the mile would be inadequate for mineral property, and that a map of eleven feet per mile, or something
  2076
  like that, would be required. They had this fact before them, that Estimates were made and put before the House on one scale of survey, whilst the Ordnance had been conducting a 25-inch survey, and that apparently without the knowledge of the Treasury?
  MR. ROEBUCKwished to ask Mr. Speaker a question upon a matter of form. The House was now called upon to affirm a Vote supposed to have been arrived at by some Committee, but there was no Committee then sitting.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the business before the House was the bringing up of a Resolution of a Committee of Supply. What the House had done was this—to amend the Resolution passed in Committee of Supply. The question he had to put, therefore, was, that the House agree with the Resolution of the Committee so amended.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to. Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, here were two Bills on the paper standing for a second reading, which had similar objects in view; the one was the Ecclesiastical Corporations Bill, and the other the Ecclesiastical Commission, &c., Bill. He proposed that both Bills should be read a second time, and that one of them should be committed pro formâ, with a view to having them both consolidated into the one Bill. He would move the second reading of the one immediately under consideration.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be much better to amalgamate the two Bills as far as it was possible, and concurred in the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought the House ought to know whether the Government would support the Bill of his noble Friend. For himself, he would say that he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time then, on the understanding that the discussion should take place on the Motion for going into Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Government was not treating the House very fairly in asking it to assent to the

  2077
  second reading of two Bills by no means analogous in character. He had always protested against this pro formâ style of doing business; and he thought it would be much better to adhere to the forms of the House, and take the discussion upon the second reading. Otherwise, he thought that the better course would be that both Bills should be withdrawn, and one brought in with the sanction of the Government, on which the noble Marquess could move any Amendment he thought proper.
  MR. NEATEgave notice of his intention to move the insertion of a clause rigidly defining the rights of lessees under the Commissioners.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford-shire (Mr. Henley), that it would be much better to adhere to the old rules of the House, and discuss the principle of the Bill upon the second reading.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would venture to make a suggestion to the House. Let the two Bills be read a second time now, and then referred to a Select Committee. The Committee would be in a position to frame one Bill out of the two, and then it would be competent for the House to discuss the general principle when the new Bill came before them.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the recommendation of his right hon. Friend was a very wise one. He must say, he found this great fault with the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it perpetuated the interference of the Ecclesiastical Commission with the property of all the bishops in England. He hoped that ample opportunity would be yet afforded to discuss the principle of the two Bills.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would offer no objection to the adoption of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). Of course, when the Bill came out from the Committee, full opportunity would be afforded to discuss the whole question involved.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a, Select Committee.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
  Clause 1.
  MR. DOBBSsaid, the Bill as it stood would interfere with all contracts subsisting between persons already married, and was, therefore, an ex post facto law. He proposed, as an Amendment on
  "Page 1, Clause 1, lines 5 and 6, leave out 'from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for every married woman,' and insert 'it shall be lawful for every married woman who shall be married after the passing of this Act.'"
  MR. MALINSsaid, the Amendment would destroy every virtue of the Bill, which only applied to a married woman's personal property, the same rule as applied to her real property.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYobjected to the principle of the Bill, which had never been fairly discussed. He regarded the measure as one rather for the benefit of husbands than of wives. He had himself introduced a Bill upon the subject, which stood for second reading on Wednesday next, and he would suggest that his Bill should be referred, with the hon. and learned Gentleman's, to a Select Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRY SIR ERSKINE PERRY moved the Amendment, of which he had given notice, namely:—
  "Clause 1, line 9, after 'feme sole,' insert 'Provided always, that where any such future or reversionary interest is sold, the proceeds of the sale shall be paid to and held by such married woman to her own use as if she were a feme sole.'"
  MR. MALINSsaid, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the wife could refuse to agree to the sale unless the proceeds were disposed of as she wished.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause 1, and following Clauses agreed to.
  The House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Lismore, after the Death of his Father.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl Ferrers; several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Grand Juries (Ireland) Act (1836) Amendment; Town Byelaws Revision.
2aPolice; Ministers' Money (Ireland).

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  The Order of the Day for the Second Reading read,
  EARL GRANVILLE:My Lords, although I never was more convinced of the wisdom of any measure than I am of that of the Bill to which I am about to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, yet on many grounds I feel my own unfitness to bring the case before your Lordships. I think, however, that it will be better for me, instead of making apologies for myself, to attempt to explain as clearly and as shortly as I can the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government have decided to adopt this Bill as their own, and to recommend it to your Lordships' attention. This tax of ministers' money was imposed in the reign of Charles II. for the purpose of supporting Protestant ministers in eight of the principal towns in Ireland—towns in which, for political reasons, it was thought desirable to establish Protestant communities—and it was therefore a tax upon Protestants to support the

  1961
  ministers of their religion. I cannot help thinking that this is one instance among many which show how utterly futile are legislative attempts to coerce the people in their religious belief; because we see such towns as Cork, Waterford, and Limerick flourishing in spite of being subject to this tax, while some of the greatest and most prosperous towns, such as Belfast, have sprung up and reached to a high state of civilization and prosperity without being fostered by any such aid. I will first glance at one point which has been raised on this subject to the effect that the tax was originally imposed upon Protestants, and that therefore it would be unfair to release from it persons who bought property subject to its operation, but who avail themselves of religious scruples to evade its payment. Now although this consideration may be of some importance as regards the abstract rights of those concerned, it is of small practical effect with reference to the settlement of the question. But in the first place the fact is not sufficiently proved; because, although undoubtedly according to law no property could be held in these towns except by Protestants, yet I believe that, as in the case of most similarly arbitrary enactments, this law was not enforced; and much property was in fact held by Catholics. Twenty-eight years the tax had been imposed; in the reign of James II. an Act was passed to repeal it, and it was there described as "a new imposition of a very oppressive character." I do not quote this Act as an inducement to your Lordships to follow in the footsteps of that ill-advised king; but considering how soon after the imposition of this tax the Act for its abolition was passed, and considering that that king was not very likely to have the interest of the Protestants very much at heart, it is some evidence that even at that early period the tax was felt as a grievance by the Roman Catholics. This tax continued for many years, along with the questions of tithe and church rates, to excite in a most deplorable degree political and religious discord in Ireland. In the year 1833 an Act was passed which was of the greatest benefit to Ireland, and certainly of the greatest benefit to the Established Church of Ireland, for which great credit is due to the Government of Lord Grey, and more particularly to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. One great point of that Act was the
  1962
  abolition of the church cess, which, he might remind their Lordships, was an imposition of far more ancient origin than ministers' money. It produced a far larger sum—£70,000 a year, and it was far more equally distributed, being borne by the whole country—by Protestant Dissenters as well as by Roman Catholics. Every reason that can be alleged in favour of the abolition of one is infinitely stronger in favour of the abolition of the other. However, the noble Earl will explain to your Lordships, I have no doubt, in what sense these two questions are different, and he will, I hope, give some information to the House as to whether it really was the intention of the Government of Lord Grey to omit the question of ministers' money from that Act. If such was the intention of the Government I will venture to ask the noble Earl the meaning of the 73rd clause in that Act—a clause which I confess has puzzled me and others very much—
  "And be it further enacted, that in all parishes and places where, by virtue of any law, statute, or custom, provision may heretofore have been made, by vestry or other assessment, for the maintenance of any curate, lecturer, clerk, or other minister or assistant in the celebration of Divine worship, or attendant or sexton, such provision by vestry or other assessment shall from and after the passing of this Act wholly cease and determine; and it shall and may be lawful for the said Commissioners under this Act, by and out of the proceeds of the said annual tax, and the other funds as aforesaid by this Act vested in them, to provide for all such purposes in such manner and proportions as to them shall seem fitting."
  Not being a lawyer, I do not understand very clearly what is meant in this clause by the words "out of the proceeds of this tax," seeing that the tax had just been repealed; but, above all, I do not understand how it is that ministers' money could continue to exist after the passing of this clause. I have no doubt that excellent technical reasons may be given for it, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl can clearly state the intentions of the Government, and how far the clause was meant to go; but at present I cannot see why it does not include ministers' money, for the objections to the principle of ministers' money are quite as strong as to any of the taxes which it actually did abolish. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be kind enough to explain what the Government intended to be the meaning of that clause. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by references to Hansard or by any quotations of

  1963
  that sort; I will, therefore, confine myself to stating that the Church Temporalities Act was advocated by Lord Althorp and his colleagues on the broad basis of the general state of Ireland and the tendency of the measure to remove the political and religious discord which convulsed that country. The noble Earl himself most ably and most eloquently advocated it on the principle ''that the advantages to the Established Church are far more than counterbalanced by the odium attending its enforcement." He quoted the recommendation of the Committee—
  "But, without discussing the abstract question of right, your Committee are of opinion that there might exist in Ireland funds, under the direction of a board of first fruits, if rightly managed, sufficient in themselves for the whole of this charge; and it concludes by recommending the substitution of the first fruits of a certain annual tax, from 5 to 15 per cent, on all benefices of a certain annual value, and proposes that the fund so raised should be applied to the removal of church cess."
  And he went on to say, "upon that very principle this measure proposes to provide for the church cess. Every single argument of that sort applies in an infinitely greater degree to the principle of ministers' money.
  Some little time after that—about fifteen years ago—the question of ministers' money was brought before Parliament; but the proposition to abolish it altogether was negatived. In 1848 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to examine into the whole question. That Committee, as far as one can judge from the Report and the Minutes of its proceedings, appeared to be unanimously of opinion that the evils of the tax were great, although they differed as to the exact mode of removing them. After that the opposition to the tax went on gaining ground by the good sense of the House of Commons and by the ventilation which it obtained, and various propositions were made for its repeal, which were met, not by a direct refusal, but by different objections, generally based on the principle of postponement until the funds from which the tax might be replaced had grown more ample. At last it got to such a point under the Government of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that a promise was given that a Bill should be brought in to settle the question. I know very well that a Government has no right to ask another Government to state in what way they would remedy an evil; but when the noble
  1964
  Earl opposite, with his weight and influence in this House, takes upon himself to ask your Lordships to reject altogether the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, I think it will be desirable that he should state what the measure of his Government was, or, at all events, the general principle of it—whether it was exactly the same as the measure which was shortly afterwards passed into law, which has to a certain extent failed, or whether it contained other provisions which would have met the difficulties of the question. The noble Earl's Government was succeeded by the Government of the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Aberdeen). This question was considered by them, and a Bill was brought in on the subject and was passed. The objects of this Bill were excellent, but I hope it is not humiliating to say—having been a party to the passing of the next Bill—that, though some of its principal objects have been most efficiently secured, others have entirely failed. The principal objects of that Bill were, in the first place, to secure a fixed income to the clergy in lieu of the precarious incomes hitherto received by them; next, to relieve them of the unpopularity to which they were exposed by having to collect this tax by their own collectors; and, thirdly, to release from the tax altogether certain classes of poor householders. It is worth while to see, first of all, how far this last object has been carried out. The proportion of houses in the different towns relieved by that Act is as follows—Dublin, 3–7ths; Cork, 4–5ths; Clonmel, 8–9ths; Drogheda, 10–11ths; Kilkenny, 10–13ths; Kinsale, 6–7ths; Limerick, 13–14ths; and Waterford, 5–9ths. In all, seventy-four per cent, or three-quarters of the whole number of householders have been relieved. But although the ministers were mulcted of 25 per cent of their incomes, yet it has given them the greatest satisfaction to have paid directly from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that reduced income, which is, in fact, much greater than they have ever succeeded in collecting themselves. The great evil which the Act failed to meet was the difficulty of collecting the tax. It was enacted that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be repaid by the corporations of the towns subject to the tax, which should themselves collect it and pay it to the Paymaster of the Civil Services, who should hand it over to the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. This provision has entirely failed. Dublin has

  1965
  collected the tax under peculiar circumstances which I do not think it advisable to go into your Lordships' House, but the other seven corporations have absolutely refused to collect it. It was not an agreeable thing for the Executive Government to have to call upon large public bodies to make themselves the instruments of enforcing the payment of a tax from their fellow-citizens which individually they looked upon as unjust and unfair, and which they had in their resisted; but the duty of the Government was to see the law carried out, and from this they did not abstain. They brought an action against the principal offender, Cork; they got a judgment to the amount of £3,000, accompanied, however, by a declaration from the Judges that the law was, in their opinion, inoperative, and that its machinery was inadequate. Some of the most learned counsel in Ireland—among them gentlemen opposed to Her Majesty's Government—advised an appeal. Notice of an appeal was given, and according to the information which I have received, that appeal is not likely to be settled in less than two years; so that the result will be four years' arrears of the tax—two already due, and the two that will elapse during the hearing of the case. Now, I put it to the good sense of your Lordships whether, in such circumstances as these, the Government had any other alternative than that which they have adopted. It is clear that if this tax were collected for Imperial purposes, it would be infinitely more wise and more advantageous to Her Majesty's Treasury to charge the whole amount on the Consolidated Fund than to raise it in the manner now done, and to be compelled to resort to expensive legal proceedings for a very doubtful issue in the end. I ask whether there is any noble Lord, being a friend of the Church of Ireland, or of England itself, who is prepared to suggest a course that it would have been more desirable for Her Majesty's Government to have adopted. For myself, I must say I am at a loss to see the alternative that was in the hands of the Government.
  My Lords, I have now stated, as clearly as I can, the course of proceedings by which Her Majesty's Government were led to the conclusion that they ought to adopt this measure. It is not for me to anticipate objections, but I am bound to bear in mind that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has given notice of a Motion
  1966
  that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months. The noble Earl will, with the great, ability that characterizes him, discover every possible objection that can be brought, in the slightest degree to influence your Lordships against the Bill, and I have no doubt he will state those objections in that clear, minute manner, and with that particular charm that will oblige your Lordships, not certainly to assent to his arguments, but to listen most carefully to every word he utters. I reserve, of course, my right to reply afterwards to such objections as may be urged against the measure, unless, as is most probable, they are met by some of my noble Friends beside me; but in the meantime there are one or two arguments employed to which I shall take the liberty briefly to refer. The first of these is based on the great principle that it is wrong to diminish the property of the Church in any way whatever. I do not believe that this argument will be raised to-night. It appears to me impossible to urge it after the course that was taken on the Church Temporalities Act. Another argument was, that raised the other evening by the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Ellenborough) and by the noble Earl below the gangway (Earl of Wicklow), that we are transferring this amount to a fund which is not adequate to bear it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) has no objection to the principle of that transference, but I am afraid that if he waits till it is undeniably clear that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have ample funds on hand to meet the transference, he will never arrive at such a result. It is only necessary to look at the report of the Commissioners themselves as to the mode in which they deal with the expenditure committed to their charge, and the common-sense view they take of their duties, to enable us to judge of the means which they have at their disposal under the Act. The Commissioners have a difficult part to play. Some of them are the most eminent men in Ireland, but some are ex officio Members resident in Dublin, and I appeal to your Lordships whether ex officio Members of a Board like this can really give to details of this sort any other than a general and superficial superintendence. One of the Commissioners is unfortunately dead; another is above eighty years of age, and a third was represented as unfit for work, because of the immense labours that had been thrown upon him. The Government immediately

  1967
  on becoming aware of these circumstances, proceeded to take steps to make up the deficiency that existed; but they were informed that this interference had become unnecessary, as the gentleman who was laid aside had recovered his health. The first thing the Commissioners appear to have done, under the Church Temporalities Act, was to issue a requisition to the incumbents of the different parishes, asking each of them to state the requirements of their particular parishes under the Act. Your Lordships all know how unsatisfactory any general inquiry of that sort must be. If any of your Lordships were to write to his cook, his coachman, and his bailiff, requiring a particular account from each of all that was necessary to be done in his particular department, you are perfectly aware how unsatisfactory the inquiry would be. It must have been still more in a case like the present, while the application of the relief afforded by the Commissioners could not fail to be a most difficult question. I find that the Commissioners erected fifty Protestant churches with sittings for 10,041 persons, in parishes containing a population of 264,673 souls, of whom only 14,323, of all ages, were in communion with the Established Church. I do not mean to say there was no reason for erecting a church in any one of those cases, for I admit it would be a melancholy thing to find 100, or fifty, or twenty Protestants in any part of the kingdom unable to obtain the religious comforts and instructions that they might require; but I say that if you go on on this scale it is impossible that any fund can be found of magnitude enough to meet such engagements. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) said the other night that it was impossible to come to a conclusion on this matter without information as to the state of the funds of the Commissioners; and the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Wicklow) thought it necessary that Returns should be laid on your Lordships' table giving further information. Now, my Lords, I am quite willing to admit that, as the case stands, the expenditure of the Commissioners does not leave a balance. And here I would refer again to a declaration made by Lord Althorp, in which he says:—
  "The amount of church rates or cess does not, I believe, come to more than between £60,000 and £70,000 a year, and as far as I can calculate the means I have placed at the disposal of Parliament, they will amount to about £69,000 a year, and there is therefore some deficiency in the
  1968
  means to be provided in lieu of church rates. I am satisfied, however, that the expences to which that cess is applied might be diminished, and in that case the means in the hands of the House would be sufficient for the purposes intended."
  Now, it is quite clear that, having saddled the Commission with the church rate, you have diminished the power of building churches to the extent of £60,000 or £70,000 a year, and it is also clear that if we take away £12,000 more from the fund for ministers' money, you will to that extent still more diminish the fund for building churches. It is, however, impossible to examine the Return without perceiving that savings of various kinds may be effected. I see with regard to clerks and sextons' salaries there is a sum of —23,000 charged, and it seems possible that a consolidation of those offices may lead to considerable economy. There are then sums paid for various services, and for the sacramental elements, in which savings may be effected. Supposing that reductions can be made in these expenses, I am sure every sincere and pious Christian will desire to see them made, in order that this apple of discord among the Irish people may be removed. I am not sure that there are not other points, even including the constitution of the Board itself, in which reduction may not be effected; but beyond that I find from the Commissioners' Returns that there will be a future increase in their revenues to the extent of at least £12,205 within the next few years. The annual payment to be made by any successor of the present Archbishop of Armagh (who, I hope, will long remain with us) is £4,500; taxes upon the see of Armagh, £2,343; taxes on dignities and benefices not avoided since the passing of the Temporalities Act, £4,000, and from the suspension of fourteen benefices, £1,360; making a total of £12,205. Therefore, my Lords, not denying that by passing this Bill you will for the moment, to a certain extent, diminish the income of the Church in Ireland, still I do believe that by proper economy it will be possible to replace the amount subtracted by this Bill, and that in future years an increased revenue will more than meet any deficiency which it may create.
  My Lords, I have now stated some of the grounds why I think the objections which have been raised are invalid, and why Her Majesty's Government have felt bound to pursue the course they have. I may venture to put it to your Lordships

  1969
  whether, considering the question with regard to the practical result of your Lordships' vote, you will withhold your assent from this measure. If this House shall adopt the Bill, you will at once remove the only sore which now exists in Ireland, the only rankling ground of irritation against the Church establishment in that country. At the same time, you will be adding a charge, not of £12,000, because the Commissioners only receive £5,000, but of a lesser amount upon the Ecclesiastical Fund, which, however, may be more than met by a proper economy on the part of the Board. If, on the other hand, your Lordships should reject this Bill, you will be placing yourselves in collision with the other House of Parliament upon this point, which I cannot but think would be a course pregnant with evil, and injurious to the Church itself in Ireland. The great majority of your Lordships, I believe, are desirous of maintaining that Church, and I need not recite the reasons which appear to render the maintenance of that Church desirable. But there are those who oppose it, and one reason assigned by them, of the validity of which I give no opinion, but which is obviously a formidable one, is, that there is a large endowment for the religion of the minority, while the religion of the majority in Ireland is entirely disendowed. Some years ago there was strong feeling displayed in Ireland, and the Church in that country was placed in circumstances of considerable danger. I believe that feeling has entirely passed away, and I ask your Lordships whether it will be wise or statesmanlike that, for the sake of a paltry tax like this, we should risk the revival of that feeling of irritation throughout Ireland. Even under the present Act the Commissioners do not receive the money, although the Government has not hesitated to put the law in action; but the difficulties attending the enforcement of the law are immense. Not only are the proceedings expensive, but we are informed, upon the highest authority, that the machinery of the Act is inoperative; and if this Bill be rejected the Government will incur in future the odium of prosecuting corporations (many of which have no property) for a tax which the House of Commons, by a majority of 139, has declared to be an odious tax—one that ought to be entirely abolished. Leaving comfort out of the question, I ask will it be decent to place Her Majesty's
  1970
  Government in that position? No doubt, the noble Earl opposite will suggest a useful and practical alternative for this Bill, although at present I am entirely ignorant in what way it can be done; but I never was more sincere or more earnest than I am now in asking your Lordships to accede to the second reading of this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I must confess it is not without some reluctance that I present myself to your Lordships to offer my most unhesitating, uncompromising opposition to the Bill, the second reading of which has just been moved by the noble Earl. I am ready to admit upon the low ground of expediency, upon which alone the noble Earl has relied, there are not wanting plausible arguments, of which I must do the noble Earl the justice to say he has made the most, in support of a measure which arises out of general and exceptional circumstances. 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 difficulty. I admit 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, my Lords, 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 expediency—I shall rely upon principle, to which this Bill is diametrically opposed. 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 succession of years, but the right to which has been confirmed within the last three years by additional legislation—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 conducting the affairs of a great nation.
  My noble Friend has told us truly that this ministers' money is a tax which was imposed upon certain descriptions of property as long ago as the reign of Charles

  1971
  II. It was 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 Government in 1832 and 1833. I have the recollection of that period clearly in my mind; for in the responsible situation 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 measures, stringent as they were, and opposed as they were by the friends of the Established Church, by the adversaries of the Church, and also by some members of that Cabinet in which I held a seat, are now acknowledged to have rescused that Church from a position of great danger. I will just venture to bring before your Lordships the circumstances in which the Established Church in Ireland found itself in 1832 and 1833. At that time there was a violent crusade against the very existence of the Established Church, and in every possible way it was 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 provision 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 country 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 prevailed then to a greater extent than at present, the clergy were obliged to collect their tithes directly from the occupiers. Of course, that was a state of things which gave great facilities for practical opposition, as well as great ground for complaint as to the policy of the existing system. The result was that nine-tenths of the clergy in Ireland were absolutely deprived of their incomes, 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
  1972
  districts to aid those who refused to pay. The opposition which was then offered to the levy of tithes was much more formidable than that which is now offered to the collection of ministers' money; yet according to the principle of the noble Earl, because it was extremely hazardous and expensive to collect the tithes, we ought to have given way to those who resisted the operation 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 encounter 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 Executive. But what was the course which we pursued at that time? We determined to give every support to the clergy. I do not mean to say that the police were employed in the collection of tithes, but both the police and the military were actively, diligently, and constantly employed in protecting the persons of those who, in the discharge of a lawful 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 dissatisfaction which prevailed. What was done? The Government became purchasers of the tithes, and they supplied the military with forage from the hay and corn so forced into the market. They were purchasers whom no intimidation could deter, and thus the combination entered into to prevent the sale of those articles was counteracted, and great facilities were given for realizing the revenues of the clergy from such sources. 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 Government took? They supported the claims of the clergy, and refused to yield to those who were depriving them of the means of living. In 1832 they took upon themselves the collection of the tithes upon a memorial from the clergy that they were unable to raise them. In that year a sum of £60,000, and in 1833 a sum of £1,000,000, were advanced to pay up the claims of the clergy upon the tithes of those years, which were collected by the Government themselves; but in the meantime

  1973
  the salient points of attack—the real objections to the operation of the law—were met by the measures which we adopted. Those measures consisted, first, in the compulsory commutation of the tithes for a fixed money-payment; and, secondly, in charging the landlord, 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 twelve or eighteen 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 excited, and the collection of the tithes would be easy, a certain proportion of the landowners came forward and voluntarily took the burden upon themselves, and, after considerable discussion, an arrangement was finally adopted by which the prospective change was made immediate, the whole burden being at once thrown upon the landlords, who received a reduction of 25 per cent. Such was the course which the Government pursued with respect to the tithes. They supported the claim, they maintained 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 opposed and successfully resisted. 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 Government of Earl Grey in dealing with the tithes and that suggested by the Bill before us.
  EARL GRANVILLE: What I said was, that I could see no difference in principle between the present Bill and the measure proposed by the Government of Earl Grey relative to church cess. I said nothing about church rates.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I can assure the noble Earl that I shall not lose sight of that question. Well, my Lords, the next subject that had to be dealt with was the church cess. It amounted in all to about £60,000 a year, and its character may be briefly described. It was to be leviable by the vestries of the different
  1974
  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 single farthing would have been received from one end of the country to the other. What, therefore, was the course pursued? Why, the Roman Catholics, the bulk of whom paid the church cess in every parish, the moment the ordinary parish business was transacted were compelled to leave the place where the vestry was sitting, and then the few Protestant, parishioners who remained fixed the amount of the tax for the support of the Church. That was a state of things which necessarily produced great irritation, great dissatisfaction, great unwillingness 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 equivalent in principle to tenths in England, had been abolished 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 defraying those charges which fell upon the vestry cess, 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 proceeds 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 Ireland were without glebe houses. A third of the parishes in Ireland—about 450—were below £200 per annum, 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 erection of glebe-houses for the clergy; and, in the fourth, for raising the miserable deficient income to a certain decent 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 fruits, which were liable to the payment of the same charge; but in lieu of first fruits and vestry cess, a

  1975
  prospective charge was laid upon all benefices, varing from 5 to 15 per cent, gradually rising according to the value of the living, but not touching those below £200 a year. It was also provided that, as we have seen done with certain canonries in England, certain bishoprics in Ireland should be superseded, the number being too large, and that the funds arising from those sees should be devoted to the purposes I have already mentioned—a measure 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 had agreed to pay for the renewal of their leases, together with an additional sum in consideration of the advantages 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 somewhere about £150,000 a year, and the following was the statement which he made of the charges which were proposed by the Government to be defrayed by that amount:—Church cess, £60,000; augmentation of poor livings, £46,500; building and repairing churches, £20,000; glebe-houses, £10,000; making in all, £136,500. These were the measures which the Government 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 noble Friend 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. My Lords, the difference between church cess and ministers' money was not only seen and admitted by Lord Grey's Government, but by every Government since Lord Grey's, and there has been no Government until the present
  1976
  which has conceded, without compensation, the abolition of this tax upon property. The distinction between church cess and ministers' money is broad and clear. Church cess was a voluntary assessment, uncertain in amount, dependent on the will of the vestry whether they would choose to levy it or not, and to what amount they would choose to levy it; it was levied exclusively 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 house as any chief rent payable by any one of your Lordships, in respect of any house you may have bought. The property was purchased 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 conscientiousness which objects to any pecuniary charge. Supposing I bought a house liable to the payment of £50 a year for the support of a Jewish synagogue, I should like to know what would be said of me if, from conscientious motives, I refused to pay money for such a purpose. I 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. And what is the fact in this case? 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 of principle between church cess, uncertain in amount and voluntary in assessment, and ministers' money, a fixed charge on property which the purchasers contracted to pay at the time of the purchase. 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 preposterous 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

  1977
  it, and had really nothing whatever to do with religious feeling."—[3 Hansard, exxxi. 1378.]
  That was the opinion in 1854 of a colleague of my noble Friend—a colleague then and a colleague now—the present First Lord of the Treasury. Nevertheless, my Lords, 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 II. There had been great change in the value, and some houses which were liable were so liable according to the original valuation of the time of Charles II. There had been great change in the value, and some houses which were valuable at that time had become quite valueless since. Furthermore, a large proportion was levied 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 collection, they abstained from collecting it; he might have given the clergy credit for some good feeling in refraining from collecting the tax from their poorer parishioners, and not put it merely on the ground of the difficulty and expense. There wore three objections urged against the tax. The first was the religions objection. The religious objection, although put forward in the Committee of 1848, was, as I have shown, repudiated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in 1854. The second was the inequality of the rate, owing to its being levied on an obsolete valuation. The third was the large proportion of the tax which, numerically speaking, fell upon the poorest class of houses. I am not now going to defend all the provisions of 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 to the tax. The Act of 1854, in the first place, relieved from the payment of ministers' money all houses under the annual value of £10, 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 providing that a new valuation should take place, and that the per centage chargeable should be levied afterwards, according to the assessment of the poor rate, and not according to the old valuation in the time of Charles II. What was the result of the alteration of the law? Whereas there were liable to the tax before 1854, 51,019
  1978
  houses, there were exempted by operation of the Act, 30,873; and there remain liable 20,146; and of those 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 this tax. The nominal amount of the tax before the Act was something more than £15,000 a year, and by a provision in the Act, in consideration of the greater security in the receipt of their revenues, the clergy were to receive seventy-five per cent of the nominal income. The amount was to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to be repaid by the corporations of the different towns, upon whom, whether wisely or not, the Act of 1854 threw the liability of collecting the tax. But while the Act of 1854 removed the objectionable features of the tax it maintained the principle 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 John Young, who introduced the measure, speaking 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, he thought, why no remedy had been applied was this, that, although the amount was so small, amounting to no move than £15,000 a year, the principle of inviolability of property was involved, for it was impossible to take it away without violating property and spreading considerable alarm among persons attached to the Church. If this property were taken away it would be asked what, would remain inviolable."—[3 Hansard, exxxi. 503.]
  My Lords, it is upon that principle that this tax is inviolable. In conformity with the principle adopted by all preceding Governments, the noble Earl who was at the head of the Government in 1854 (the Earl of Aberdeen)—to which most of the noble Lords opposite belonged—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 Parliamentary sanction the right of the clergy on the one hand, and the liability of the taxpayers on the other, and gave an additional legislative sanction to the tax

  1979
  by enacting new modes of collecting it. That was so recent as 1854; and yet in 1857 the members of the same Government which in 1854 made the arrangements for greater security come down upon grounds of expediency, and expediency alone—and expediency 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 Lordships to take away that property which in 1854 they themselves declared to be inviolable. My Lords, I say that for my own part I should be quite prepared to rest this case upon the ground of principle—upon the same ground which has been laid down by successive Governments, and upon which the members of the present Government abstained from abolishing it by an expedient so manifestly convenient as the course now proposed. I say, my Lords, I should be content to rest my opposition to this Bill upon the ground of principle, however plausible may be the expediency pleaded in its favour. But, my Lords, I am prepared to meet the noble Earl upon his own ground—to deal with him on the question of expediency and to demonstrate the insufficiency of the existing fund to meet the charge imposed upon it by this Bill. What is proposed is, that whereas the tax was charged previously by the Act of 1854 upon the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it was provided that they should be recompensed out of the funds of the corporations raised by levying this tax, by this Bill the funds in the hands of the Commissioners are to be made liable to pay the incomes of the clergy, and that towards these funds no contribution shall be made by the corporations. 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 proposes to throw this additional charge of £12,000. I beg, however, in passing, not to be supposed to admit that, even if the fund were sufficient to meet the proposed 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 all the legitimate purposes to which it is applicable. I have stated to your Lordships, and I may here be permitted to
  1980
  repeat, that the charges, as estimated by Earl Grey, were £60,000 a year for church cess, £46,500 a year for the augmentation of small livings, £20,000 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 £136,500. To meet this charge Earl Grey supposed there would be £150,000 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 £100,000 exclusive of any sum they may receive for ministers' money. The miscalculation would be extraordinary, but that the estimate was made previous to the Act by which twenty-five per cent was taken from the total amount of the incomes of the clergy (reduced from £600,000 to £430,000), forming the fund from which the greatest portion of the fund was to be derived; and subsequently another ten per cent was deducted, while the tax by which it was raised was not to be levied on incomes under £200 a year. That being the case, it is not strange that the fund estimated at £150,000 should have produced less than £100,000. And here I must notice an extraordinary misconception of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman), in estimating the fund at the disposal of the Commissioners at £150,000, which I can only account for by supposing that he has included a sum of £60,000 paid to the Commissioners as the purchase of perpetuities. It is singular that the right hon. Gentleman should have fallen into the blunder of supposing that sum to be income instead of capital, which the Commissioners cannot touch. If, therefore, as I have stated, the income at the disposal of the Commissioners is under £100,000 a year, let me refer to the charges which are actually imposed, exclusive of ministers' money. The actual revenue, exclusive of ministers' money, amounts to £99,376, and the charges imposed by the Act upon that fund amount to £79,526, leaving, therefore, a surplus of £19,850. Let me remind your Lordships of the purposes to which, according to Earl Grey, the surplus was to be devoted, and which so long as they are unsupplied should prevent your placing any new charge upon the fund. For building new churches and chapels, for which the estimate was taken by Earl Grey at £20,000 a year, the sum put down for

  1981
  the present year is £9,464. Let me explain under what circumstances it is proposed to expend that sum. The Act provides that, in every case where new churches are to be built, one-fifth of the cost shall be derived from the inhabitants in the locality; but, owing to the inadequacy of the fund at the disposal of the Commissioners, they have been compelled to require, not one-fifth, but one-half, from the inhabitants of the locality. The Commissioners propose to apply £9,464 a year to the erection of new churches, and £3,636 a year to the enlargement of existing ones, making a total charge for new churches and the enlargement of existing churches of upwards of £13,000 out of the surplus at their disposal, estimated, as I have shown, at something less than £20,000 a year. But the Commissioners say—
  "The expenditure on 'new churches and enlargements' must depend in each year on the funds available for such purposes, after provision shall have been made for necessary repair. The sums now charged for those objects are the amounts expended on an average of the last three years to August, 1856; but these sums fall far short of what would be required were the Board enabled to provide for many urgent cases which have been repeatedly brought under their notice. And it is to be further observed that, from the apprehension that the source of revenue arising from ministers' money will be withdrawn, and which amounts to a sum nearly equal to the proposed expenditure under these heads, the Commissioners have, at a late special meeting of their Board, been most reluctantly obliged to suspend any further grants for such objects, although in two cases, greatly pressed on their attention, assistance from private subscriptions to the amount of nearly £2,000 will be most probably lost by delay."
  So much for the building and enlargement of churches. With regard to the augmentation of small benefices which Earl Grey estimated at £46,500, the Commissioners have not been able during the whole period of their administration of the funds to apply more than £4,000 a year in the relief of ninety livings under £100 a year, and for glebe-houses nothing at all. There remain, then, to be supplied out of the fund in question, in order to meet the purposes contemplated by Earl Grey, the difference between £46,000 and £4000 for small livings, the difference between £20,000 and £9,000 for new churches and repairs, and the difference between £10,000 and nil. for glebes, &c.; that is, altogether not less than about £63,000 a year remain to be supplied out of the fund. And now, that being the state of the fund, I am
  1982
  gravely told that upon the ground of expediency it is desirable to throw this additional charge upon it, and that in the opinion of the Government the fund is well able to bear it. My Lords, I appeal to the highest authority in Ireland—the Lord Chancellor, Maziere Brady, who certainly has no peculiar leaning towards the Protestant Church, nor any anxiety to represent its claims in too favourable a light. I hold in my hand the last Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland, dated August, 1856, which is signed by the Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishop of Dublin, and between the names of those most rev. Prelates is the signature of "Maziere Brady," Lord Chancellor of Ireland, attesting the accuracy of the statement contained in the Report. Now, what does the Report say? In a case of this kind, where the argument of the Government turns altogether upon the sufficiency of the funds, your Lordships will permit me to read the evidence given by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland:—
  "The difficulties (he says) with which they (the Commissioners) have had to contend in this respect, and the dissatisfaction occasioned by their refusing to comply with many reasonable demands, are likely to be much increased during the ensuing year, owing to a considerable defalcation in their funds from the non-receipt of a large portion of the moneys which, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the 17 Vict., cap. 11, should have been levied by the collector-general of rates in the city of Dublin, and the respective Boards of Guardians and other bodies, for the payment of ministers' money, the amount received by the Commissioners from the Paymaster of Civil Services being but £4,939 10 s. 1d., while the payments made by them to the clergy entitled to ministers' money have amounted this year to £12,369 17 s. 9d., making the total sum paid on this account since the passing of the Act in 1854, £21,300 7s.; and we have to inform your Excellency that, having regard to the objects to which the funds vested in the Board by the Church Temporalities Act had been dedicated prior to the Act which imposed on the Board the payment of ministers' money, and also to the insufficiency of the funds at their disposal to provide adequately for those objects, the Commissioners felt it necessary in the month of March last to call the attention of the Government, for the second time, to the large advances which had been made by them for payments on this account, and to the small proportion which had been lodged to their credit by the Paymaster of Civil Services; but we regret to state that, notwithstanding the directions then given by your Excellency for the recovery of these moneys, a very small amount has been since received. Under these circumstances we would take this opportunity of observing to your Excellency that the Commissioners cannot continue to make similar advances without serious detriment to the numerous objects for which they have to provide,"

  1983
  There, my Lords, is the evidence of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose appointment was confirmed by the present Government; yet in the face of this evidence, showing that the funds of the Commissioners are insufficient, and representing the impossibility of their continuing to make advances without serious detriment to the object to which those funds were primarily devoted, the Government state to your Lordships that, in their judgment, the funds are amply sufficient, and that they may fairly be charged with an additional payment of £12,000 a year, to increase the deficiency pointed out by the Lord Chancellor.
  So much for the question of expediency with regard to the sufficiency of the fund to meet the demands upon it; but I now come to the expediency of the pretences on which Her Majesty's Government rest the abandonment of the principle upon which, in 1854, they thought it right to insist. My Lords, I will venture to say, that whatever temporary advantage they may gain from the course they propose, is, in point of expediency, infinitely counterbalanced by the inexpediency of teaching the people of Ireland that passive resistance to a legal charge is sure to secure the sanction and support of the Government, and that if they resist, or refuse to obey the law, the law will be altered. I have already stated that four-fifths of the houses liable to this tax are situate in the city of Dublin. The total sum raised is about £12,000, of which £8,490 is chargeable upon Dublin, £2,270 upon Cork, and an amount of £1,416 is divided among six other towns. It is, however, in consequence of the resistance of Cork and the other six towns liable to this impost, which pay about £3,000 out of the £12,000, that the Government propose to abolish the tax. The noble Earl admits that, in Dublin, circumstances rendered the collection of the tax less difficult, and passing over a city which pays £8,400 of the whole tax, he grounds the expediency of the Bill on the resistance of the towns which pay only £3,600 of it. My Lords, I regard this Bill as a confession, on the part of the Government, of their inability to maintain the law. I cannot conceive anything more damaging or injurious to the character of the present, and of all Governments, than the measure now under consideration. I venture to say that the Government have abundant means of enforcing the law. Why, with regard to nearly three-fourths of the tax, there is
  1984
  no resistance on the part of the persons upon whom it is charged, but the opposition proceeds from certain corporate bodies upon whom the duty of collecting the rate is imposed. They tell the Irish Government that they will not obey the law, and they are at once authorized by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to suspend the collection of the tax. Was such a thing ever before known as a public body informing the Lord Lieutenant that it was their deliberate intention not to obey the law, and requiring him, on that ground, to obtain an alteration of the law in accordance with their views? If ever such a suggestion was made, can an instance be adduced when a Government did not reject the proposal with indignation, but, on the contrary, tamely yielded to the request, and themselves brought forward a measure for carrying it into effect? Don't tell me that the Government have no power to enforce the tax. The existing law provides that, in default of payment half-yearly, the amount shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown from the city of Dublin, or any other city or borough in which default may occur, and that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may order all sums duo to the Crown to be recovered and paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Am I to be told that, with the powers of recovering the tax as a Crown debt, the law or the Government are so impotent in Ireland, that £12,000 cannot be collected in these eight cities? In Dublin, however, which contributes three-fourths of the tax, no difficulty was made, either by the payers or the collectors; and I will venture to say that, if the Government had not themselves encouraged the suspension of the collection, by far the larger portion of the sum now due in Dublin would have been paid without hesitation. The Act of 1854 enabled owners of property to commute these annual payments upon very easy terms—fourteen years' purchase; but the Commissioners state in their last Report that only one proposal for commutation had been made in Dublin. I do not wonder at that; for, if the Government sanction the non-payment of the tax, it is clear that no man will purchase an exemption which he can obtain for nothing. The effect of the abolition of the tax will be to increase the value of the property liable to it in the city of Dublin alone to the amount of £8,000 a year. The owners of that property will be the persons chiefly benefited, because no house under £10 a

  1985
  year is at present chargeable with the tax, and among them is a right hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Sidney Herbert), who owns a considerable portion of Dublin, and I believe is the last man who would desire to derive any personal advantage at the expense of the property of the Church. There are many others also, who, like my right hon. Friend, would not, I am convinced, desire to derive advantage from, a law which is founded, not upon justice, but upon injustice. My Lords, I oppose this Bill upon the ground of principle, inasmuch as it takes away from the Church property which belongs to that institution by a sacred right, and abolishes the tax for the benefit of the owners of property, in the collection of which there is now no abuse, no hardship, no real grievance. I have proved to your Lordships, upon the evidence of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, so far from being able at the present moment to bear an additional charge, are wholly inadequate to the charges imposed upon them by Parliament, and that the most laudable objects must be given up if the Bill passes; and, lastly, I have presented to your Lordships this consideration—that nothing can be more dangerous than that a Government should yield to the mere clamour of one or two corporations, in a case where there is no proved necessity for an alteration of the law, when the Government have all the authority of law, having already obtained judgment for the Crown in the Court of Exchequer, and where, therefore, the law cannot be doubtful. The noble Earl rested the Bill mainly on the difficulty of enforcing the collection of the tax—and upon such grounds I cannot consent to alter a law which the Legislature, under the sanction of a Government many of the Members of which sit opposite, deliberately enacted so late as 1854. My Lords, upon all these grounds of principle and expediency, I feel it my bounden duty to give my voice against this Bill, and to move that it be read a second time this day six months. Allow me, my Lords, to add that the position of the individual clergymen will be precisely the same whether this Bill be passed or not. They will receive their incomes, but they will receive them from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at the expense of other great objects, which were the primary objects of the Act of 1834, and which must be abandoned if you consent to deprive the Commissioners
  1986
  of the funds which it is proposed to take from them by this Bill.
  Amendment moved to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that his noble Friend opposite had shown much reluctance to grapple with the question as to what distinction there was between the case of church cess and that of ministers' money. The only distinction, that his noble Friend could show was that in the case of church cess the rate was variable, while in that of ministers' money its amount was fixed and certain. How this small distinction could make any difference in the principle, or how it was to support the whole weight of the argument which his noble Friend had raised upon it, he (the Earl of Harrowby) was unable to conceive. At any rate, this argument was favourable to the abolition of church rates in England, because they were not a fixed charge upon property, and therefore, according to his noble Friend, might properly be dealt with. By the adoption of this line of argument it appeared to him that his noble Friend had thrown the Church of England overboard. He was prepared entirely to abandon that argument in favour of the maintenance of church rates which rested upon the fact that everybody had taken, inherited, or bought property subject to them, because these rates were not fixed in their amount. If there was any value in the distinction, he (the Earl of Harrowby) congratulated those who wished to abolish church rates that they had in the person of his noble Friend found the most important ally who had yet joined them. The real and only distinction between church cess and ministers' money appeared to him (the Earl of Harrowby) to be this—that whereas the burden upon property to maintain the churches was an aboriginal one, of which we could not find the date, and which had grown up with the growth of the constitution and of all our social habits, ministers' money was a burden, the date of which was known, and was not a very ancient one. In the reign of Charles II. the Parliament of Ireland thought it desirable to maintain the ministers in certain towns by a particular charge on property; in 1857 the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland thought it better to maintain them in a different manner. That was the amount of the difference, and he appealed to their Lordships whether it was

  1987
  not much in favour of church cess as compared with ministers' money. Then, with regard to the principle of this impost. If that principle were so important, so sacred, and so inviolable, how was it that his noble Friend opposite consented without a murmur to the Act of 1854, by which, according to his own account, 30,000 ratepayers out of 50,000 were relieved from this charge. If it was merely a burden on property it ought not to have been touched. If this measure was a violation of principle, so also was the Act of 1854, and in that violation his noble Friend concurred.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I beg that my noble Friend will not father on me every act of the late Government which I did not oppose.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYnever said that his noble Friend passed that measure; he only said that his noble Friend was a constant attendant in the House, and the leader of a great party; and therefore he was justified, seeing that the noble Earl acquiesced in passing the measure that he agreed with its principle, and in saying that if it involved a violation of principle he neglected his duty in not resisting it. He did not understand how his noble Friend could exempt himself from responsibility. If he were an ordinary Member of the House, who sauntered down on great occasions, he should be unwilling to saddle him with responsibility, but being a leader in that House of a great party, which took particular interest in all questions which concerned the Church, more especially the Church of Ireland, he was not entitled to disclaim connexion with any measure affecting the interests or the property of that Church against which he had not remonstrated. He asserted that his noble Friend did acquiesce in the Bill of 1854, and that by agreeing to that he acquiesced to the full extent in the principle which the Government was now asking their Lordships to carry a little further. Why did his noble Friend acquiesce in that principle? Because of the exceeding inconvenience of the then state of things. The Government now asked their Lordships to carry the principle still further for a similar reason, because of the great inconvenience of the state of things which now existed. ["Oh, oh !"] It was easy to meet the arguments of a speaker by hooting—a practice which belonged rather to a more
  1988
  tumultuous assembly than to their Lordships' House—but he hoped that this would meet with some more intelligible response. The inconvenience of the present state of things was not to be trifled with. No one knew better than his noble Friend the danger of provoking political or religious hostility in Ireland, for he had himself on different occasions on which his reason was not convinced been obliged to yield in deference to the political inconvenience of carrying a logical conclusion to its extreme results. The inconvenience of the present state of things was that you had to compel Roman Catholic corporations to levy an impost, hated on religious grounds, upon several of the most populous Roman Catholic towns of Ireland. All the materials for legislation on this subject were ready in Ireland, and if you employed the machinery of the law for the purpose of enforcing this impost, you would run the risk of raising an agitation from which the most dangerous consequences might result. Would it be wise, then, to compel the Government to go on forcing the corporations to levy this impost, at the risk of exciting the religious animosity and discontent at the absence of which we had now so much reason to rejoice? Yet such would be the result of the rejection of this measure. He thought he had shown the necessity for a change, and the only question was what alteration should be adopted. He did not see so much difficulty as other noble Lords pretended to see in dealing with this question; and if he could see any practical proposal other than that which had been made by the Government, he would willingly accept it. It was with great pain that he consented to impose an additional burden on a fund which was not adequate for all its religious intentions, and to interpose between the full developement of all the beneficial objects which Parliament had contemplated; but the question was whether an impost so grievous to the consciences of Roman Catholics should be continued. All the most important objects, however, of the Act, as regarded the existing churches, had been obtained, and although he should rejoice as much as any one to see the Church of Ireland expand itself all over the face of the country, yet to interfere with the means of its future expansion was a very different thing from diverting the provision for its present requirements. Had the Government of

  1989
  Lord Grey, at the time of the passing of the Church Temporalities Act, included the extinction of this tax among the purposes to which the funds of the Commissioners should be liable, nobody would have complained, and they would have got rid of a source of difficulty and danger, as well to those who were interested in this change as to the community at large. There was no fund of this sort in England, and yet the Established Church in this country was not found to suffer for want of it. The proposal of the Government was a perfectly fair one, and it might have been inserted by the noble Earl opposite in the Act of 1833, with the utmost propriety. If their Lordships should refuse to deal with the question now, they would leave open a dangerous sore, which might spread to any extent. The measure of the Government was supported by a large majority of the other House, and unless some other better mode of remedying the difficulty could be suggested he hoped their Lordships would adopt it, and not run the risk which might arise from having to compel Roman Catholic corporations to make themselves the instrument of collecting a tax so odious to their fellow citizens.
  THE BISHOP OF KILMOREthought that this Bill was calculated to do the greatest injury to the Irish branch of the Established Church. This, he believed, was the opinion of all the clergymen of the Irish Church, with rare exceptions, if any exception at all. The Bill proposed to take a sum of £11,545 from the revenues of the Established Church without any equivalent whatever, and to hand it over to those householders on whose property it had been a legal charge for more than 200 years. The principle involved in the Bill was of the most dangerous character, for if it were sanctioned in this instance there was no reason why it should not at once be extended to tithe rent-charges, and, in fact, to all the property of the Established Church. Expediency was the only argument urged in favour of the Bill, and expediency would equally justify the alienation of the remainder of the revenues of the Church. This question of ministers' money had been thoroughly sifted by a Committee of the other House in 1848, and three years ago there was an Act passed which was understood in Ireland to be a final compromise of the whole question. That Act removed every fair and legitimate objection
  1990
  which was taken by the Committee to ministers' money, with the exception of one which the Committee called "a paramount objection"—the religious complexion of the tax. The inequalities of the valuations, the collection by the clergy, and the extent to which the tax pressed on the poorer classes, were all remedied by the Act of 1853; but with the religious part of the question the Legislation did not meddle. Now, because the public bodies, consisting for the most part of Roman Catholics, to whom the collection of this tax was handed over by the Act of 1853, had refused to collect it, the Government, instead of making the obedience of the people conform to the law, proposed to make the law conform to the disobedience of the people. This Bill went a great deal further than the "paramount objection" of the Committee of the House of Commons; for, instead of merely relieving those who had religious objections to the tax, it exempted persons also who had never expressed any wish to be exempted. Notwithstanding the doubt expressed by the noble Earl below, he was still of opinion that this was a tax which had been imposed by a Protestant king on Protestant property for the support of a Protestant Church. The measure proposed in this Bill was condemned by a Committee, of which Mr. Shiel was chairman. It was proposed in that Committee, by Mr. Reynolds, that a Bill should be introduced to abolish ministers' money and charge it on the fund of the Commissioners. The Committee were equally divided on the question, and Mr. Sheil, the chairman, gave his casting vote against the Motion. The Committee having rejected Mr. Reynolds' proposal, brought forward one of their own, and, oddly enough, they arrived at the conclusion that the revenue of the Commissioners was adequate to their annual expenditure. That was a great mistake. Last year the expenditure of the Commissioners was £92,000. Mr. Quin put down the revenue, supposing all the money was collected, at£83,000, but, in reality, the money collected was only £71,000 to meet an expenditure of £92,000. Well, this very hostile Committee recommended—what?—that any surplus that remained in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, after expending what was absolutely necessary, should be applied to the extinguishment of the ministers' money. But there never had been, and never could be, any surplus, considering the many solemn trusts they

  1991
  had to perform. If the present Bill passed, no money would be left for building and enlarging churches. At this moment there were sixty-five applications for rebuilding parish churches. There had been subscribed privately £14,000 for that purpose, provided assistance could be got from the Commissioners, and if this Bill passed none of those churches would ever be built. It was said Protestants should themselves subscribe for the rebuilding of their churches. Now, a sum of £68,000 had been raised by the Protestants of Ireland for that purpose, and that sum had passed through the hands of the Commissioners. In addition to this he could state the case of two dioceses, in which £40,000 had been raised that never came into the hands of the Commissioners, but had been applied directly to church building by individuals. One great reason why there could not be a surplus in the hands of the Commissioners was the increasing expenses consequent on the higher price of material for building and the higher wages paid for labour in Ireland. Notwithstanding all this the demands of the Church were increasing. The Church was extending itself in every direction in Ireland, and he could say from experience that wherever a church was built it was immediately filled by an attentive and pious congregation, and he had received a communication from the Bishop of Derry stating, that in consequence of the want of accommodation in his diocese the Protestant population were driven to the Presbyterian chapels. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) spoke of 10,000 sittings having been provided for a small number of Protestant inhabitants; but, surely if there were fifty Protestants in one parish and fifty in another, these were not to be deprived of the opportunity of worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience; and there was no reason why the Protestant population should not increase in those places. Protestant congregations had started up in the most unexpected places in Ireland, even in the wilds of Connemara, where formerly hardly a Protestant was to be found. To show how Protestant congregations increased, he would instance the case of Cavan. In that town there was formerly a miserable church, capable of holding 200 people, and the attendance was very bad. In 1816 a new church was built to hold 500 or 600; three years ago it was enlarged so as to hold 1,000, and it was now crowded every Sunday. Whatever
  1992
  the cause, certain it was that what had been a forest was becoming a fruitful field; the congregations of the Established Church in Ireland were increasing every day, and although the Commissioners might expect soon an increase in their funds of some £8,000 a year, yet that amount would be insufficient to meet the growing necessities of the Church. The Bill would therefore operate to cripple the means of the Established Church in Ireland, to injure her usefulness, and to deprive Protestants of the only fund from which places of worship could be built. He opposed the Bill because it was a contravention of the Church Temporalities Act, and which might now be regarded as the great charter of the Established Church in Ireland. He opposed it on the ground, that whereas Parliament had abolished the church cess in Ireland, in 1833, and had formed out of the possessions of the Church an equivalent for that cess, the measure then under their consideration would come upon that equivalent itself, and would seize upon one-tenth part of its amount. He opposed it because he believed that instead of producing peace and goodwill among the adherents of different creeds in Ireland, it would be regarded by one party as a triumph, and by the other as a grievous wrong—feelings which were not likely to conduce to more friendly sentiments. He opposed the Bill, also, because the funds it would alienate from the Established Church, although it would nominally be made good out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, must be taken from the stipends of clergymen holding wretched benefices of the value of less than £100 a year. The measure would prevent, and prevent for ever, any hope of increase in the miserable receipts of the poorer class of the clergy in Ireland. There were at present in that country not less than 302 benefices which were under the value of £100 a year, and which it would require a sum of £7,800 to bring up to that amount, while it would require £49,000 to bring them up to a sum of £200 a year, which, according to the Church Temporalities Act, was the standard it was desirable to attain. He most earnestly hoped their Lordships would pause before they passed a measure which would condemn many hard working and pious clergymen in Ireland, some of whom, too, had large families, to hopeless and irremediable poverty, and before they inflicted a severe, if not an irrecoverable

  1993
  blow on the Irish branch of the Established Church.
  THE EARL OF CORKsaid, that from his connection with a city which had been foremost in objecting to the tax of ministers' money, he felt called upon to make a few observations upon the Bill before the House, He thought that even were the difficulties that would ensue from the abolition of the tax more considerable than had been alleged, or was even the injury likely to be inflicted upon the Established Church still greater than he ventured to believe would be the case, it would still be only right to make every attempt to repeal a tax which stood in the singular position of being odious alike to the receivers and to the payers—deprecated by Protestants and denounced by Roman Catholics, and which had been solemnly denounced by one of the Prelates of the Established Church in Ireland, as a festering sore in the bosom of that Church. The tax itself was objectionable, but even in its imposition it was unjust and irregular, the burden of it not being borne by the respective towns which paid it in due proportion to their respective means. From a Return laid before the House in 1855 he found that the amount raised in Limerick only exceeded by £3 the amount paid by Kilkenny, although the former city was twice as large and twice as wealthy as the latter. One of the pretended features of the Act of 1854 was the exemption from the tax of all houses of less rental than £10, but, in fact, those houses had been previously practically exempted from the tax. The attempt to make the corporations of the various towns collectors of the tax had been utterly unsuccessful, as might have been expected. It was natural that in towns where Roman Catholics predominated greatly in number over Protestants the corporations elected by the inhabitants would be chiefly adherents of the former religion, and equally natural was it that corporations thus constituted should decline to be the collectors of a tax which they regarded as odious and oppressive. The corporation of the city of Cork had so refused, and the Government had proceeded against them. The Irish Court had pronounced against the corporation, who, however, had given notice of appeal to that. House, and the question still remained pending—an irritating source of disagreement. Regarding the tax in its less obnoxious light of an impost upon property, he could state that it had been
  1994
  unfairly charged upon property which was not liable to it. He knew a case in which a parish in the suburbs of Cork, which had never possessed a church since the reign of Edward IV., was annexed to the adjoining parish in the city of Cork in 1824, and immediately rendered liable to the church cess. When that cess was abolished, the rector, in 1838, procured a valuation to be made of the parish which had been added in 1824, and upon that valuation made a demand for ministers' money. At present a large portion of the houses which were chargeable with the tax were not situate within the boundaries of the city, and therefore, according to the terms of the Act of Charles II., were not liable to the impost. Such were the principal objections to the tax. Some of them were comparatively insignificant; but he begged their Lordships to remember that a very wide principle was involved. He did not concur in the statement which bad been made, that the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were insufficient to sustain this additional burden; but even if they were, he thought that with judicious management a balance might be created large enough to do so, and certain he was that any money so applied by the Commissioners would not be diverted from its original purpose. He believed that the proposed change, so far from weakening, would strengthen the position of the Established Church, He believed, on the contrary, that by satisfying the requirements of justice it would draw closer the bonds of union between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, and remove many of those petty jealousies which the maintenance of the present charge contributed so strongly to develope. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would not, by rejecting the Bill, be the means of continuing a system which must always create a great amount of bitterness and ill-feeling in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he believed that the principle involved in that Bill must vitally affect the interests of the Established Church in Ireland. He felt persuaded that an act of grosser injustice—a more flagrant act of spoliation under the plea of expediency—had never been introduced into either House of Parliament. It would prevent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from expending their funds in aid of the objects which they were appointed to promote—and, what was far more objectionable than all the rest—would deprive the clergy of many of the

  1995
  rights which they thought had been secured to them by the Act of 1854. He had heard no answer whatever to the arguments put forward in the masterly speech of the noble Earl who had moved the rejection of the Bill. The property on which that tax was levied had been purchased with a knowledge that it was liable to the charge, and the purchasers had no right at present to come forward and claim an exemption, on the ground of a religious scruple, from a burden they had knowingly incurred, and for which a due allowance had no doubt been made to them at the period of entering into their bargain. He was at a loss to understand how it could be supposed that a measure of that description, which would inflict on the members of one religious persuasion a great and manifest injury, could tend to promote political and religious harmony. The truth was, the Bill was part and parcel of a system of injustice which had for many years been practised by the executive in Ireland against the Protestants of that country, and more especially against the members of the Established Church. He felt convinced that if the Bill should be passed into law a precedent would be established which would shake to its foundation the security of property of every description.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWopposed the Bill. He would congratulate the noble Earl the President of the Council, that this Bill had not originated with the Government. It had been introduced by a Member of one of the corporations against whom proceedings had been instituted, and if it passed no one would be more surprised at its success than that hon. Gentleman. It was opposed to the principle of the last Bill introduced by the Government. It had, it was true, passed the other House by a large majority, but that vote was influenced by a statement, made wholly without foundation, that the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commission were equal to this additional burden. As soon as that statement was published the Commissioners communicated with the Lord Lieutenant, and showed that the Attorney General for Ireland in his statement had included in their income the amount of voluntary subscriptions they received; and they had petitioned their Lordships not to pass this Bill without referring to them for information as to the amount of their resources. He believed that two-thirds of their charge were paid freely and willingly, and he could
  1996
  not but believe, that if proper measures were taken the whole tax could be enforced; at all events they ought not to legislate in this way, because a certain small number of persons refused to pay a tax to which they were legally liable.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he thought it must be admitted that the whole course of the discussion that evening was in favour of the rejection of the measure. That was a tax leviable by statute upon property, and if this Bill passed there could be no security against a proposition to abolish the tithe-rent charge or any other charge to which property was liable, for they all rested on the same principle. He had been astonished to hear it contended that the principle of the Act of 1854 was identical with that of the present Bill. Why the Act of 1854 went upon the same principle as the Tithe-rent Charge Act of 1833; and while it removed all the reasonable objections to which the tax was then open—as, for example, the objection founded upon the excessive taxation of a very poor class, and that the tax was levied in a very unequal manner—it left the principle of the tax untouched. Certainly the Bill did not meet the objection entertained by certain Roman Catholic Members—namely, that Roman Catholics ought not to be called upon to pay for the support of a Protestant Establishment. But then if that doctrine were accepted, why ought a Roman Catholic landlord to be called upon to pay the rent charge. No; let them once give up the principle upon which the tax of ministers' money depended, and they gave up the principle upon which a Church Establishment was maintainable. Reference had been made by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Kilmore) to the Committee of 1848. Now, this much he would say of that Committee, that its report could not be said fairly to represent the evidence taken before the Committee, for of the majority of seven that signed it six were Roman Catholic gentlemen from Ireland. Having gone through the whole of the Reports of the Commissioners, he might also say that nothing could be more apparent than that the revenues of the Commission were insufficient for carrying out some of the principal objects for which the Commission was established. Commencing with the year 1842, and ending with the year 1849, he might show that in each succeeding year the language of the Commissioners

  1997
  was the same, always complaining of the inadequacy of their revenue for the building and repairing of churches. All that the Commissioners were able to expend upon the augmentation of small livings, one of their first objects, was £2,600 a year. There were 302 benefices in Ireland under £100 a year, and it would require £7,800 a year to augment them to that amount. There were 629 under £200 a year, and it would take a sum of £48,000 a year to raise them to that amount. Now, considering what were the wants of clergymen—considering that they were generally of good family—considering, too, the peculiar position of the Irish clergy, he did not hesitate to say, in the face of such a state of things, that their Lordships would be guilty of a breach of trust if they applied the funds of the Commissioners to purposes never contemplated by the Act of Parliament. The noble Earl had spoken of the great expediency of putting an end to agitation in Ireland. Now he would ask their Lordships to compare the position of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), when in 1833 he brought forward his great measure of Church reform in Ireland, with the position of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that evening. In 1833 there was an agitation in Ireland—a dangerous agitation, but it was met by a large, ample, and well-considered measure; the revenues of the Church were preserved, and the principles on which the Establishment was founded were maintained. Well, but what was the agitation of these days? Why, it was an agitation proceeding just from seven towns, and the whole amount involved was £4,000 a year—the remainder being paid by the City of Dublin willingly and cheerfully. And had any one liable for the tax refused to pay it? Oh, no; but the parties appointed for the purpose by the Act of Parliament had refused to collect it. And who were these? Why the corporate authorities of the several towns, many of whom were elected under the direct influence and control of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and under that influence they refused to collect the tax. It was only right that plain language should be used upon such an occasion. These corporations had the impudence to go before the Lord Lieutenant, and declare that they would not collect the tax. And what, under such circumstances, ought to have been the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant, anxious to uphold the cause
  1998
  of law? Why, he should have said that, "for his part, his duty was plain, and that the law should be enforced." But, unfortunately, the representative of Her Majesty did not deal thus with the corporations; but he told them he thought they were altogether in the right. So that, because some seven towns refused to collect some £4,000 a year, their Lordships were called upon to confiscate Church property to the extent of £12,000 a year. The proper course would have been to say, "We will first make you obey the law, and then we will ascertain whether you have any real grievance." He admitted that the time was when the Government of this country had reason to dread agitation in Ireland, but then indeed the agitation was led by one of the ablest men that any country had ever produced. Now, however, Her Majesty's Government had no such determined opposition to encounter, and all he could say, therefore, was, that their policy must be dictated by a miserable expediency.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEsaid, he would at once admit that if he could bring himself to believe that the two noble Earls opposite were correct in their opinions that the existing law was sufficiently stringent to secure the collection of ministers' money in Ireland, he would feel considerable hesitation in voting for the Bill. But he considered that the great difficulty with regard to this question had been occasioned by the Act generally known as Sir John Young's Act, which established a much more cumbrous machinery than that which previously existed for the collection of the tax. He did not see the force of the distinction which had been drawn between the foundations on which church cess and ministers' money rested. No doubt there was a difference, but he thought that a prescriptive title was quite as good as any right derived from a statute. The evidence taken before the Committee in 1848 showed that before the passing of the Act of 1854 the collection of this tax was impracticable, and that any such arrangement as the tithe commutation was impossible. If their Lordships had any doubt on the point, he could very soon satisfy them that that was the universal feeling of the Protestant clergy. He held in his hand a letter, written by the late Dean of Limerick, now Bishop of Derry, who said that from observation and inquiry he had arrived at the conviction that to transfer the liability to this tax from the tenant to the

  1999
  landlord would be attended with no beneficial result, for that "the fretting sore" would still continue, and be attended with the same inconveniences, and that the only effectual plan would be to place the burden where it ought to have been placed in 1834—on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Nothing could be stronger than this, nor was there in it anything inconsistent with the desire which must be felt by any zealous clergyman for the erection of fresh churches. For his own part, he deeply regretted that there was not a large fund applicable to the erection and repairing of churches, but he did not think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were a proper body to administer such a fund. From their Reports, it appeared that they had made numerous grants for the building of churches in wild outlying districts, towards which no local contributions had been raised; and, to his own knowledge, much of the money which they had spent in rebuilding churches had been worse than wasted. In one instance they had dismantled a venerable pile, filled with most interesting monuments, when the congregation could have been better accommodated by building a small church at a few miles' distance. He believed that in Ireland, as well as in England, too little reliance had been placed upon voluntary contributions, and that their natural enthusiasm had carried the people of Ireland too far in favour of church extension, leading many of them to think that if they built churches in the wilderness they would immediately obtain congregations. Such acts had been productive, not only of great waste of money, but also of deplorable political evils. Considering the present prosperous condition of Ireland, he hoped their Lordships would not, for the sake of a few paltry pounds, run the risk of continuing religious agitation in Ireland, which must have the most deplorable effects.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: It appears to me, my Lords, that this question is surrounded with great difficulties. Whether you read this Bill a second time or not, hardly any one of us, I think, on either side of the House, who looks fairly at the whole merits of the question can be perfectly satisfied with the position in which the matter will stand. It is now nearly twenty years ago since I became acquainted with some of the circumstances connected with this tax, and from that time to the present I have always entertained
  2000
  the opinion that it would be most desirable to get rid of it. It is an offensive grievance. It is the last remnant of the old mode of maintaining the Church in Ireland, and it would be most desirable that it should altogether disappear. What are we to do if this Bill is thrown out? It is to be regretted that such great difficulties have been experienced in the collection of the tax, that the clergy have never realized all that was due to them; and it is still more to be regretted, that during the last three years there has been a very small proportion of it collected. But what is the consequence? Are we to go back to begin to collect the whole of this tax, and still more, to collect the arrears? That is a course upon which I am confident no Government, however bold, would embark. What I desire to see in Ireland is that which was the object of the Catholic Relief Act—religious peace; but I do not think that we shall advance religious peace if we begin again to collect this tax. It may be collected; I will assume it to be possible to place in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission the whole of the sum which the tax ought to produce; but if we do collect the whole of these sums, small as they are, it will be at the expense of the ill-will of the country. An individual may find compensation in the collection of that which is his due, in the feeling that he is taking possession of that which is his own, without regarding the feelings of those by whom it is paid; but that cannot, or, at least, ought not to be the feeling of a Government. It is the duty of a Government to endeavour to establish tranquillity and good feeling throughout the whole country under its sway. Entertaining that feeling, I am naturally desirous that no further attempt should be made to collect this tax. At the same time, I must admit that there are also great difficulties and many things to be regretted in the surrender of it. It is much to be regretted that there should ever be a triumph of agitation over the law. I felt that when the Church Temporalities Act was passed, and I expressed myself in this House on the subject as strongly as any man. I am not now divested of that feeling; but looking at the whole question I think that, under the circumstances in which we are placed, it would be desirable rather to take the course of passing than of rejecting the measure. But there is another consideration, which ought not to be passed over.

  2001
  I am unwilling, certainly, to deprive the fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners even of the sum of £5,000, seeing that, according to the best judgment which I can form, they have no surplus; but, on the contrary, are at present in a deficiency. After taking into account all the occasional temporary charges and all the occasional temporary receipts, it appears to me that, taking credit for the whole of the £12,000 which might by possibility be collected on account of this ministers' money, their receipts would have been £107,000; whereas, charged as they are with the payment of ministers' money, their charges are £122,000; so that, supposing there should be no reduction of expenditure, and we are not to look for any material increase of revenue, there would be a permanent deficit of £15,000. I may observe that there is no limit that we can assign to the expenditure which may be incurred under the Church Temporalities Act. There is no end to the expenditure which may be incurred in building and repairing churches, and even then all the livings are to be raised to the amount of £200 a year. I know not what sum of money may be needed for this purpose, but I know that the larger collected the sum, the larger will be the expenditure, and that unless there is an absolute necessity for economy there will be, I will not say a mal-administration, but a loose and anything but economical management of the funds. I would not offer to your Lordships these doubts of mine, and the inclination of my mind to support the Bill, notwithstanding the objection which I feel to repealing a tax opposed in such a manner as this has been, if I were not prepared to offer a suggestion which, if it should be favourably received by the Government, would, I think, to a certain extent at least, do away with the inconveniences and losses which must be occasioned by the loss of ministers' money. I propose to find an equivalent for the sum to be taken away, and in this manner:—At the present time there is a perfectly separate and independent establishment for the administration of the revenues of the Temporalities Fund. They have their Commissioners, their secretaries, their treasurer, their clerks, their architect, and their solicitor, all separate and independent. We know how great the extravagance must necessarily be where, for performing acts which are of an analogous nature, instead of confining yourselves to one establishment
  2002
  you set up another, with all its separate paraphernalia. It will entail upon you great extravagance, and the work will not be so well done. I would suggest, therefore, that the administration of this fund should be transferred to the Board of Works in Ireland. They have their architect, their treasurer, and all the other means of performing the various operations which devolve upon the Commissioners of this fund. They have better means of ascertaining the most advantageous mode of carrying into effect the repairs of the different fabrics, they have their staff complete, and I apprehend that without any additional expense they will be enabled to perform all that is performed now by an expensive establishment. It really does strike me as most extraordinary, that in nearly all years previous to the year 1847, the expenses of management, such as I have described, amounted to £8,000 or £9,000—that is to say, to 10 per cent of the whole receipts. In these last years the sum does not appear to have been quite so much, in consequence of the omission of the charge of the solicitor; but I apprehend there can be no permanent reduction of that charge, and the amount will probably be much the same. By transferring the management of the fund to the Board of Works all this outlay may be saved. No doubt, there may be some jealousy on the part of the Church at such a transfer, but I see no objection to associating the episcopal members of the ecclesiastical corporation to the Board of Works on all matters referring to the Temporalities Fund, so as to preserve the ecclesiastical character of the administration; while at the same time you derive all the advantages of the possession of a perfect staff. I expect that if the administration of this fund were transferred, as I have suggested, you would have the work better done and more economically. In hopes that the Government will give their fair consideration to this suggestion, I vote for the second reading of the Bill. Should the Bill be read a second time, I shall again press the subject on the consideration of the House, and I shall probably then be prepared, should the Government not take it out of my hands, to suggest a clause or clauses by which this object may be carried out. It will then be open to your Lordships on the third reading to consider the whole subject again; but, under all circumstances, it is desirable that we should at least read this Bill a second time.
  LORD BERNERSwas of opinion, that this question ought to be treated as one affecting not merely Ireland, but the whole empire. If they took away the property of the Church wherever it might be, they took away the foundation on which it rested.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he would have been quite content to have given a silent vote upon this question, were it not that he had arrived at the conclusion to which he had come with regret and reluctance in reference to one point of considerable importance. But before he touched on that one point, he begged to be allowed to say a few words with reference to a portion of the speech of the noble Earl who had just resumed his scat. The noble Earl said there was little or no agitation on this subject in Ireland, and he compared the condition of that country in 1833 with that which it presented at this moment, and described it as exhibiting no agitation on this question and no disturbance. He must say he heard that remark with regret from the noble Earl, because surely he did not mean to maintain that no decision was to be taken on any question, however just it might be to do so, till there was agitation—nay, more, till there were disturbance and disorder in the country. They wore apt to object to measures of this nature on two grounds—either because there was no agitation, and therefore no demand for them; or else because there was agitation, and therefore they ought not to yield them. He maintained, however, that it was the duty of a statesman to foresee evil before it arrived, and to forestall agitation by conceding measures that were just and necessary. If, therefore, as stated by his noble Friend who spoke last but one, this question had reached a point which demanded their immediate attention—if it had been carried, as their Lordships knew it had, in the other House of Parliament by a very large majority, and was introduced to this House under the sanction of the Government—if, under those circumstances, they were satisfied that it was a question which must soon find its solution in some such terms as those now before them, then they were bound to endeavour to settle it now, and to do so in such a way as that it would not only prevent disorder, but produce religious peace. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment objected with great force to the doctrine that any man should be allowed to base his resistance to an
  2004
  impost on his religious creed. He agreed so far with the noble Earl; but at the same time he begged to observe that it was on this principle church cess was abolished in Ireland, because it was imposed by a Protestant vestry on Roman Catholics. He did not, however, rest his support of measures such as the present on that ground, because, in the same spirit in which he considered that Roman Catholics were bound to contribute to the Established Church in Ireland he equally maintained that this country was bound to support and maintain the establishment of Maynooth. The noble Earl also contended that we ought not to alienate any portion of the revenues of the Church merely for the purpose of relieving the owners of property. We ought not, certainly, to interfere with the Church revenues merely for that purpose, but neither should we be deterred from doing so because property will be thereby relieved. When we abolished church cess to the extent of £60,000 or £70,000 we provided a substitute, not out of the property of the country, but out of the property of the Church. It was not done for that express purpose, but it nevertheless greatly relieved the property of Ireland. In 1854 the same thing was done when a large portion of the ministers' money was surrendered. There was another point to which he wished to allude. The noble Earl spoke strongly of the material difference between the conduct of the present Government and that of the Government of Earl Grey in 1833; but it appeared to him that Her Majesty's Ministers were pursuing precisely the course which was taken then. He understood from the Lord President of the Council that the Government had maintained the law in Ireland on this subject, but, seeing the necessity that existed for a change, they, like the noble Earl in 1833, felt themselves constrained to introduce the measure now before their Lordships. The noble Earl opposite had certainly brought forward a very grave charge—namely, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had given corporations license to hold their hands with reference to ministers' money, and to take no steps regarding it till the Legislature had decided upon the question. Now, as he (the Duke of Newcastle) intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, he must, while doing so, protest against any such conduct on the part of the Lord Lieutenant. The duty of the Lord Lieutenant was to maintain the law

  2005
  as it stood, however strong might be his representations regarding it to the Government at home; and he trusted that if, contrary to his expectations, this Bill was rejected, the Lord Lieutenant would continue to enforce the law in Ireland. He hoped, and confidently expected that some explanation would be given upon this point by the Government which would be satisfactory to the House. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment laid down in forcible language the difference which existed, in his mind, between the church cess abolished in 1833, and the impost to which the Bill before the House had reference; but the arguments of the noble Earl did not produce conviction in his mind. If the uncertainty of the charge of the impost of church cess and the peculiar nature of its application placed it in a different position to a tax enacted 200 years ago, he could not see upon what grounds church rates could be maintained. But he fancied he could perceive a material difference. While the vestry cess in Ireland had been levied from the earliest days of the Church, and was incident upon all the property of the country, this tax of ministers' money, imposed 200 years ago, only applied to a small portion of the country, and was im-imposed, as history related, against the wishes and feelings of the people. But he trusted the Legislation of Charles the Second would not be considered of more authority than the law and custom of many ages. He now came to a ground upon which he certainly felt some reluctance at the vote which he was about to give, and this was, that it would withdraw from the Ecclesiastical Commission some portion of the funds which they so efficiently applied. But when they were told of the spiritual destitution in Ireland, he feared there were districts in this country of which the same remark could be made. The very Prelate whose letter had been referred to upon that point had, it appeared, since written another letter, stating, that in his opinion this charge might to be abolished. The noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Derby) at the close of his speech had reminded their Lordships that the Bill, if passed, would make no difference to the clergy, because their interests had been provided for by the Act of 1854, and, whether the Bill was passed or not, would receive their incomes just the same. That was undoubtedly the case, as far as related to that portion of the clergy who derived any portion of their incomes from ministers' money.
  2006
  The clergy so far had no interest in the matter, but the Church in Ireland had. It was as a friend of that Church—not as a political, but as a religious institution—desirous of seeing her spiritual influence not only continued, but increased, believing that the abolition of ministers' money would strengthen the Church in the affections of the people and remove a grievous sore from its bosom, that he should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, when I rose to make my statement I reserved to myself the right of making replies to any observations which might not have been answered by other Peers. After the speeches of my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Cork), the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), and the noble Duke who has just sat down, I find the ground almost cut away from me. I shall therefore only occupy a very few moments at this stage of the debate. In making my opening observations, I was very much in the position of the man who, being an excellent shot at a target, said he found a great difference when the mark held a loaded pistol in his hand. So in my opening observations upon a subject with which I had not previously been intimately acquainted, I could not help being conscious of the danger I was incurring when I knew I should be followed by the most eloquent and acute debater in this House, who possesses more knowledge upon this subject than perhaps any other person. I must admit it was not only bold, but rash in me, to offer a challenge or to make a request to the noble Earl for explanation upon various points, knowing as I did the admirable manner in which he avails himself of appeals of that sort when he can derive any advantage from it. I made four appeals to the noble Earl. I admit I had no right to demand replies to those appeals. A Member of the noble Earl's Government in another place having given an intimation that a Bill had been prepared to deal with this question, and having met a Motion for the abolition of this tax by moving the previous question, I asked the noble Earl whether he had any objection to state what were the general principles of that measure, as he was now inviting the House to adopt a contrary course. The noble Earl has exercised his undoubted right in not giving the slightest reply to that question. I made a similar indiscreet request, whether he could suggest any substitute for this measure to meet the admitted difficulty

  2007
  in which the Government is placed. Upon that point, also, the noble Earl remained absolutely silent, as he had an unquestionable right so to do. I made another request to him, upon which it is not quite clear that he ought to leave the House in entire ignorance. I referred to the clause in which he takes credit as having strengthened thereby the Church in Ireland—a credit which I most cordially accord to him—and I suggested that the very same arguments of danger to the Church were raised against that enactment as he uses now in regard to this Bill. I really thought the noble Earl, having had a principal share in framing that measure, would have given us some explanation of this clause, as I cannot at present understand his objections to the Bill, I now invite the House to read a second time—
  "And be it further enacted, that in all parishes and places where, by virtue of any law, statute, or custom, provision may heretofore have been made, by vestry or other assessment, for the maintenance of any curate, lecturer, clerk, or other minister or assistant in the celebration of Divine worship, or attendant, or sexton, such provision by vestry or other assessment shall, from and after the passing of this Act, wholly cease and determine; and it shall and may be lawful for the said Commissioners under this Act, by and out of the proceeds of the said annual tax, and the other funds as aforesaid by this Act vested in them, to provide for all such purposes in such manner and proportions as to them shall seem fitting."
  I am sure the noble Earl meant no discourtesy, but he did not give any explanation. The other point upon which I asked for information from the noble Earl was, that he should point out to the House in what respect there was a difference between the abolition of Church cess, with a substitute provided from the revenues of the Church, and the course which the Government proposes now to adopt. I will not argue upon the reply of the noble Earl. He stated his reasons with great ability, but I think they have been shown by the noble Duke who has just addressed us to be utterly unavailing, except for the purpose of showing the dangerous tenure of church rates in this country. I will just notice one or two points which have been referred to in the course of this discussion. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said this measure has been brought in upon the sole ground that the Commissioners have ample funds to meet the deficiency it will create. I am not aware of having stated such a thing; but the noble Earl pointed out that it was impossible for the Commissioners to have a surplus according to their present excellent
  2008
  mode of disposing of their funds. The noble Earl also expressed his surprise that the Government should make this concession to some corporations who refused to collect the tax. He was not always of that opinion, however, for I find that in the other House, in 1847, the noble Earl, in answer to a question from the noble and learned Lord near me (Lord Campbell) said—
  "Therefore, although he admitted that it would be desirable to give a fair equivalent to the Protestant clergy in those cities for whom this was the only provision made by the law, yet the great difficulty was to obtain that equivalent, unless the cities themselves assented to a different mode of levying the tax."
  The noble Earl went further, for he said it was monstrous to alter the law because seven cities, which paid but a small proportion of the tax, objected to it, while Dublin, which paid the greater portion, offered no opposition. The argument of the noble Earl is a very sound one, but he is not correct as to the fact, because the Corporation of Dublin, including Whigs and Tories, Protestants and Roman Catholics, has come to the resolution to petition against the continuance of the tax. A noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellen-borough) has made a very important suggestion with the view of economizing the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and has stated that if the Government did not do so he himself would propose a clause for the purpose of carrying that suggestion into effect, I have some doubts whether such an arrangement as the noble Earl proposes, if possible, should be made by means of a clause in this Bill. I admit, however, that his suggestion is, to a certain extent, worthy of consideration, always taking care that the Board of Works is not allowed to have a real voice in determining the principle of distribution, or the amounts which are to be bestowed upon the different districts. The noble Earl may be assured that the Government will take his suggestion into consideration, and if they cannot see their way to the adoption of the measure which he proposes they may think it advisable to refer the subject to a Select Committee. The noble Duke who spoke last said that the Government ought to give some explanation with respect to the charge that the law has been suspended in deference to those who resist its operation. I know of no declaration such as that quoted as coming from the Lord Lieutenant; on the contrary, I know that the legal proceedings

  2009
  in question were pushed with the utmost vigour until the Parliamentary announcement was made by Her Majesty's Government that it was proposed to bring in a Bill on the subject, when, of course, the proceedings were arrested.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have no right to answer the reply of the noble Earl, but I trust I may be allowed to give the explanation requested with respect to the meaning of the words inserted in the Bill of 1833. When the vestry cess came to be abolished, it was necessary to provide for all the charges imposed upon it. Among those charges was included—not quite regularly, but such had been the long practice—one for the maintenance of curates in Dublin. The words referred to by the noble Earl were introduced to cover the amount of that charge.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has given a satisfactory account of the object which the words were intended to serve, but none as to how the clause differs in principle from the present Bill. He has not even shown how it does not apply to ministers' money.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have given the noble Earl the best explanation in my power; if he wants any further information, I beg to refer him to the Lord Chief Justice, who, as Attorney General, assisted in framing the clause.
  LORD CAMPBELL: It is quite true that I had the honour to assist the noble Earl, who then filled the office of Secretary for Ireland, in framing the clause. The noble Earl showed himself at that time a true friend of the Church in Ireland; he was a skilful pilot in extremity; he resorted to Jonahism, throwing overboard church rates and bishoprics; and if he had only tossed over ministers' money likewise, the ship would have righted. With respect to the clause in dispute, I am not able at this moment to give any explanation. I sincerely believe that at that time ministers' money was overlooked. I rejoice now that this Bill is added to the excellent measure which the noble Earl passed in 1833. It completes the scheme. The noble Earl must regret that ministers' money was not included in his Bill, for it has been the misery of every Administration from that time to the present; and he must rejoice when the present Bill has passed, for he surely cannot wish when he is again Prime Minister—as he may be—to have ministers' money the torment of his new Government.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—

  Contents (Present)

  65

  Proxies

  36

  101

  Not-Contents(Present)

  71

  Proxies

  25

  96

  Majority

  5

  Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  CONTENTS.

  (PRESENT).

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancelloor.)

  Dacre, L.

  Dartvey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Leeds, D.

  De Mauley, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  De Tabley, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Erskine, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

  Chichester, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Cowper, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ellenborough, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Grey, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Minto, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Morley, E.

  Munster, E.

  Panmure, L.

  Petre, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Rivers, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Manchester, Bp.

  Saye and sele, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Belper, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Stafford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Byron, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Stuart de Decies, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (E. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Vivian, L.

  Wycombe, L.

  Congleton, L.

  (PROXIES).

  Bedford, D.

  Lindsey, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Radnor, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Yarborough, E.

  Portland, D.

  Sutherland, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Carlisle, E.

  Durham, E.

  Alvanley, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Gainsborogh, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  2011

  Dormer, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.).

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Penshurst, L. (V. Strangford.)

  Fitzgibbon, L. (E. Clare.)

  Gardner, L.

  Stourton, L.

  Godolphin, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Ward, L.

  Londesborough, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Mostyn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  (PRESENT).

  Manchester, D.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Abinger, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun.)

  Westmeath, M.

  Bateman, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Berners, L.

  Amherst, M.

  Boston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Belmore, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Desart, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Erne, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Harewood, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Downes, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Romney, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Seafleld, E.

  Gray, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Talbot, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Vane, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Sandys, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Hill, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Melville, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Kilmore, &c., Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Meath, Bp.

  (PROXIES).

  Ailsa, M.

  Poulett, E.

  Stamford and Warrington, E.

  Beverley, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Tankcrville, E.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Howe, E.

  Bangor, V.

  Jersey, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Onslow, E.

  Orford, E.

  Grantley, L.

  2012

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Middleton, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Plunket, L. (Bp. Tuam, &c.)

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcares.)

  House adjourned at a quarter to Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.