said, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

said, 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 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.

observed 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 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 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.

thought 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 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 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.

thought 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, 14s. 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 14s. 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. 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.

said, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

said, 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 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 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 was mainly indebted to the noble Lord's exertions.

said, 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.

hoped 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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 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 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.

said, 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?

said, 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.

said, 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?

said, 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 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 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.

said, 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.

was understood to state that the system of ventilation introduced at Guy's Hospital had been found to answer exceedingly well.

said, 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.

said, 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. 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.

wished 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.

had 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.

said, 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, 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 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 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. 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. 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 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.

said, 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 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 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 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.

said, he thought that the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for having introduced this subject 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.

said, that he would support the Motion of the hon. 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.

said, 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 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 11d. 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.

said, what he stated was this, that the cultivated districts would cost 11d. 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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, 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 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 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 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 sanctioned by the House itself, by a majority of 91 votes.

said, 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 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?

said, 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 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 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.

wished 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

, 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 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.

said, 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.

wished 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.

said, 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 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.

believed 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.

said, 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.

wished to know in what sense the Government interpreted the two divisions which had taken place.

said, 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.

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 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?

wished 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, he thought the Government was not treating the House very fairly in asking it to assent to the 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.

gave notice of his intention to move the insertion of a clause rigidly defining the rights of lessees under the Commissioners.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.'"

said, 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.

objected 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.

said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the wife could refuse to agree to the sale unless the proceeds were disposed of as she wished.