Sir, the attention of hon. Members may probably have been called to an announcement made by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Lords yesterday; and, although it had no distinct reference to the House of Commons, I think hon. Members would like to know that the same intention which Lord Granville expressed in regard to the House of Lords holds good with reference to this House also: that is to say, that at the earliest moment—it may be before Monday, I hope—we will put Parliament in possession of the state of the negotiations with America. We certainly shall feel it our duty, before the House separates for the Recess, either to lay Papers before it, or to make a statement, as may seem most conducive to the public interests, so as to enable the House to judge how far we have been acting in accordance with the views generally entertained in the country. We feel very deeply grateful for, as well as conscious of, the extraordinary forbearance by Parliament and by the whole country upon this matter. We are grateful for it as a mark of the confidence reposed in us, not as a particular Government, but as the Government, which is charged with very great and important public interests. I trust it will be found that we have acted in a spirit which will testify that the expression of our gratitude is not a mere empty declaration, but that we have been actuated by a spirit which will meet the approval of the country generally.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the papers relating to the late Kooka Insurrection in India; and, if he has any objection to state to the House the grounds of Mr. Cowan's dismissal from the Civil Service of India, and of Mr. Forsyth's removal to another Province?

Sir, I will lay the Kooka Papers on the Table after they are complete. Mr. Cowan has, I presume, been dismissed, and Mr. Forsyth removed, for their conduct in the Kooka affair; but the despatches explaining the decision of the Government of India have not reached us, and cannot reach us for some time, the telegraph anticipating the mail by nearly a month.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether candidates for Commissions in the Army, whose names were on the list previous to the Royal Warrant of July last, but who had not passed any examinations, will have any precedence over those candidates whose names may be sent in at any time previous to the competitive examinations; and, if there is to be selection for the competitive examinations, upon what principle the selection will be made?

Sir, no precedence will be given to anyone in the competitive examinations, except as the result of proficiency. There will be no selection, but everything will be free, in the same manner as in the competition at Woolwich.

rose to call attention to the frequency of collisions at sea, and to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the present Steering and Sailing Rules cannot be modified so as to reduce the present risk to life and property at sea. Since the time that the House had last considered this question no diminution had taken place in the loss of life and property at sea. The risk of danger had been added to by the rapid rate of sailing of our passenger vessels. The loss of life and property had been very great, and he hoped the House would think it to be for the public advantage that public inquiry should take place in this matter. Documents already in the possession of the House showed that in 1861 there were 89 lives lost through collisions at sea; in 1862 there were 54; in 1863, 41; in 1864, the year after the passing of the regulations now in force, 91 lives were lost; in 1865, 53; in 1866, 127; in 1867, 160; in 1868, 86; in 1869 there were 118 lost in British waters and 29 in British vessels elsewhere; in 1870 there were 60 lost in British waters and 50 elsewhere. This made a total in the 10 years of nearly 1,000 lives. He did not attribute the loss entirely to the defective character of the regulations; but thought there was reasonable ground for believing that a modification of the rules would prevent much of the loss. The Board of Trade had not met all the necessities of the case, and further arrangements were necessary. The collisions during these 10 years numbered 3,662, an average of 366 a-year, or rather more than 1 a-day. The Secretary of Lloyd's stated that, although the number of sailing vessels had decreased by 9 per cent, the collisions with sailing vessels had increased by 7 per cent. The number of steamers had increased by 9 per cent, and the number of collisions by 39½ per cent. From 1831, when the old rule was in force requiring a ship on the larboard tack to give way to a ship on the starboard tack, down to 1862 when the present regulations were issued various changes had been made in the rule of the road at sea, and in 1868 a further Order in Council was issued explaining these rules and regulations and modifying them in some respects. In 1848 the first regulations was made that steamers should carry red and green lights. In 1858 the duty of carrying lights was extended with respect to sailing vessels. The last time he introduced this subject the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) was President of the Board of Trade, and he stated that these rules and regulations were passed with the consent of the Admiralty. He (Sir John Hay) had enjoyed the honour of a seat at the Admiralty, and he was well aware how the matter stood, for he had been engaged in the negotiations between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. A letter, dated February 22, 1867, signed by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), was issued, from which it would be seen that the Admiralty had received several letters on the subject, and a proposition was made that it should be seen if there could not be some changes in the present regulations. The Board of Trade did not recognize the necessity of further change, and conceived that foreign nations having adopted the regulations the disadvantages of the change would be greater than the advantages. At the request of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) he went to the Board of Trade and was placed in communication with Mr. Gray, the very able Superintendent of the Marine Department of the Board; but no agreement was come to between them. Later in the year 1867, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was at the Admiralty, a further correspondence was carried on with the Board of Trade; but still no agreement could be come to, and the Admiralty resolved to act independently with regard to Her Majesty's ships. He had himself placed on the Table of the House amended rules, which simplified the present rules, and removed from them words which tended to produce confusion. He, however, by no means wished to direct the attention of the House to those amended rules, to which he was not at all wedded; but he thought an inquiry by a Select Committee was desirable, and that evidence should be taken to ascertain how far a change in the existing rules would be beneficial. The amended rules which he had suggested might, if submitted to the Committee, possibly be of some assistance in guiding them to a decision. He quoted a reply by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) to a Question put to him when he was in office, stating that rules had been framed by the Admiralty and approved of by foreign countries; but admitting that the question was one of very much interest, and that as several accidents had occurred at that time he proposed to confer with the Board of Trade and Trinity House to ascertain whether the rules could not be made more simple, especially in regard to the exhibition of the lights. Again, on May 27, 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone stated that the Admiralty had been in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject, but no conclusion had been come to. In 1869 his gallant Friend Sir Alexander Milne, Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean, had written him a letter, already quoted in this House, in which the writer stated that he had always thought that certain changes should be introduced. The late Admiral Seymour, another member of the Board, also stated in this House that he concurred in the introduction of certain changes, although he admitted that no regulations would altogether avert collisions at sea. It was therefore clear that the concurrence of the Admiralty with the Board of Trade was not so entire as the House had been led to imagine. Another point he wished to call the attention of the House to was that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council objected very strongly to the explanations as they were affixed to the Regulations of 1868. A letter from Mr. Reeve, Registrar to the Privy Council, stated that when the Judicial Council asked the Board of Trade for an explanation of the rules, their Lordships replied that it was dangerous to give any official paper with an interpretation of the regulations, as the interpretation rather belonged to courts of law; so that the Privy Council objected to the issue of explanatory rules, because they might be at variance with the decisions of the Judges. Again, the concurrence of foreign nations to the amended regulations had not been fully obtained as yet. The French Government concurred with some difficulty, seeing some danger in the adoption of the rules, and the American Government had gone still further. In consequence, or he should rather say at the time of the collision between the Oneida and the Bombay, the Government of the United States entered into a correspondence with the British Foreign Office, and the Government of the United States adopted another system of signal lights to call the attention of approaching vessels as to the intention of a vessel with regard to the helm. He would not weary the House with old cases; but he wished to show that, even at this moment, the Judges gave decisions at variance with the regulations and the explanations of the Board of Trade. In addition to the explanations issued by the Board of Trade, there were two books constantly in the hands of seamen which explained the rule of the road at sea—one of them the work of Mr. Olliver, and the other that of a gallant friend of his (Captain De Horsey). The case of the Northumberland and the Leopard was reported in The Shipping Gazette of the 23rd of April last. That case was decided at variance with the regulations and explanations of the Board of Trade. Those two vessels, the Northumberland and the Leopard, were meeting. They were not exactly end-on, and what the expression end-on meant the Judges had not yet been able to determine. When they were nearly meeting, the Leopard saw all the lights of the Northumberland; whereas the Northumberland saw only the green and the bow lights of the Leopard; and, according to the rule, the Northumberland should have kept her course, which she did, and the usual collision having occurred, the Northumberland was condemned for not having ported before. This was clearly at variance with the rule of the road as given by the Board of Trade. Since this rule had been established there had been no diminution in the number of vessels and of lives lost, while the number of collisions had largely increased. The rules of the Board of Trade required that there should be no change of course until there was a risk of collision; but he maintained that a vessel ought to take its right side of the road long before any such risk was incurred. He saw the Prime Minister in his place, and had been informed of the experiments made in his presence at Walmer and of the warm interest he had expressed in what he was pleased to term "the mute language of the rudder," and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the granting of this inquiry, which would be extremely advantageous for the public service.

said, he thought there were good reasons for moving the Motion now submitted, inasmuch as there were very great differences of opinion among naval men regarding the regulations. He himself thought the present regulations were fitted for the stupid man as well as the clever one, and any great alteration in them would tend far more to confuse people than to contribute to the advantage of the shipowner. But the whole subject required emendation. If a Committee were granted on this subject, a considerable quantity of invaluable evidence would be obtained, and some slight modifications might be suggested which might be extremely important. No complicated system of lights or fireworks would answer, because the fishing boats and other small vessels with which collisions usually occurred were sure to be unprovided with the necessary apparatus. It must be recollected that there had been a great alteration in the size and speed of vessels navigating the narrow seas since the present regulations had been framed, and that steamers of 250 feet long had been replaced by others 400 feet or 500 feet in length. He begged to second the Motion.

said, he was very sorry that he could not agree with the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). No one could be more aware than he was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had paid very great attention to this subject, and was a very great authority on the question. He thought it could not be denied that the present rules were far from perfect, and undoubtedly very great improvements might be made in them. He was also inclined to think that the theory of his hon. and gallant Friend was correct, that when ships were to the right of each other, a starboard helm ought to be used. The question appeared to him, however, not to be as to whether this or that alteration ought to be made; but whether, after the very limited experience they had had, they were justified in unsettling the rules which all the maritime nation of the world had agreed to. He thought it ought to be remembered that it was only in 1862 that the existing rules were adopted, after a very considerable amount of correspondence with foreign Powers; and he thought it was obvious to everyone that the House would be incurring a very great responsibility if they did anything which would tend to upset an arrangement, after so short a space of time as 10 years, which had been entered into not lightly, but after long deliberation, with the accumulated experience of years—a decision which had been arrived at by the Trinity House, Admiralty, Board of Trade, Judges of the Admiralty Courts, and by the advisers of the whole maritime marine of the world. He considered the regulations, having been adopted by all foreign countries, ought to be looked upon almost in the light of an International Law. As far as he could discover no complaints whatever had been made by any foreign country, and the mercantile marine of this country were unanimous against any change being made. The great thing to be aimed at was to have as few rules as possible, and these thoroughly understood, and then to leave the matter to the common sense and seaman-like qualities of the captains. Speaking with some practical knowledge—formerly as a lieutenant in charge of a watch—he could testify that nothing was so perplexing, on a dark night, in a moment of peril, with a vessel close aboard of you, to find yourself hampered with a mass of puzzling regulations. When the existing rules were in the hands of competent seamen, he believed it was almost impossible to go wrong. During the last few days he had made inquiries of the great steamship companies, and he found that they, one and all, without a single exception, deprecated the appointment of this Committee. What they said was this—"Our captains and officers are now well up in the existing rules; if you disturb the present arrangement, you will only confuse them, and there is nothing so dangerous as a time of transition. We are quite satisfied to let the rules remain as they now are, and very much deprecate the unsettling of the question." He sincerely hoped that the House would not grant the Committee, as he was convinced, if appointed, it would only have the effect, for a number of years, of disturbing an International agreement which, in the interests of all the maritime nations of the world, ought to be regarded as sacred, and which certainly should not be touched without very much stronger cause than that shown by the hon. and gallant Baronet.

said, he hoped that the Government would accede to the appointment of this Committee. They had now an enormous number of fast steamers traversing every sea, and it was very desirable that there should be an inquiry whether our rule of proceeding was right or wrong. If the Committee should report that our rules were correct it would give them additional force, and if alterations were advised, such alterations would probably soon be adopted by foreign nations. If any improvement were to be made our own country surely ought to take the initiative in the matter. He desired no relaxation, but a stricter rule as to porting the helm, for the only way of preventing collisions at sea was to adopt something of the principle by which the traffic in the streets of London was regulated.

said, he thought that it was of the greatest possible importance that they should grant this Committee. One thing which should be borne in mind was the extreme rapidity with which ships now approached each other—a circumstance which much increased the difficulty of forming an opinion and acting upon it when there was danger of collision. There was a general impression that the existing rules were departmental rules rather than the result of the experience of seafaring men. What they would gain by the appointment of this Committee would be an exhaustive Report based upon the opinions of the best authorities upon the subject.

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the rules were not simply departmental ones. They were the result of considerable discussion between the Admiralty, the Trinity House, representing the Mercantile Marine, and the Board of Trade. Foreign Governments took some time in considering the question, and the French Government suggested alterations, some of which were adopted; but in the end the rules and explanations met with the general concurrence of the Mercantile Marine and foreign Governments. He himself was at the Board of Trade at the time, and he was to some extent responsible for the rules that had been discussed that night. The credit, however, of framing the explanation of the rules was due to Mr. Gray, a most excellent permanent official of the Board of Trade. He went so far that he reduced the rules into verse—he could hardly call it poetry—which began thus—

"Green to green, red to red,

Perfect safety; go ahead;"

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) as to Mr. Gray's services in this matter. It must not be supposed, however, that the rules rested merely on his authority, for they were settled in 1862, after an immense amount of consultation between all the Departments of the State interested in the subject, and they had since that time received more and more the sanction of the maritime Powers of the world. This being so, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should feel himself bound to vote for the Motion. He entirely agreed that discussion and what was called "ventilation" of a question was a very good thing; but in this case he believed that the re-opening of the subject by a public inquiry would do a great deal more harm than good. He felt that his responsibility upon this question was no light one, and he submitted to the House that however plausible and taking a Motion for a Committee might be, it was not the duty of the Government or of the House to lend itself to any such inquiry, of which the effect would be the unsettling of the minds of sea-faring men, and the throwing great doubt upon things that should not be doubted. He understood that the foundation of the Motion was the number of collisions that took place at sea. The figures, however, varied so strangely from year to year that it was almost impossible to draw any rational conclusion from them. He was informed that the increase in the number of collisions was in a large degree owing to the great increase of tonnage—that was, of the number of vessels—and that there had been no increased collisions out of proportion to the increase of tonnage. To-day the Secretary of Lloyd's Association absolutely denied to him the statement that the collisions had increased beyond that proportion, or that the rule of the road had anything to do with the increase of collisions. It was not for him (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to say what was the cause of these unfortunate collisions. Many causes were alleged, one of them being that the intense degree of competition which now prevailed, and which was greater than ever was known before, led to greater hurry, risk, and recklessness than ever happened previously. But whatever might be the cause of these collisions, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) did not move for an inquiry into the cause of collisions; he proposed an inquiry, whether the rule of the road at sea could not be amended? The question was, whether it would be expedient to re-open the whole question of the rule of the road at sea which was now the maritime code of every nation of the world that was of the slightest importance. The hon. and gallant Member said that he did not attribute the increased number of collisions to the rule of the road; but still he thought that the rule of the road might be improved. He tried to detract from the authority of these rules by saying that there had been a difference of opinion upon them between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, especially as to the two new rules that explained the original ones. No doubt there was a kind of misconception at first as to the two rules; but the Departments afterwards came to an entire agreement, as was shown by the Order in Council of July, 1868, making the additional rules the law of the land just as much as the original rules were. As to the Judges not being bound to pay attention to the explanations, diagrams, and so on of the Board of Trade, he must say that he believed these explanations were of the greatest possible benefit to seafaring men. As to the two additional rules, the Judges were just as much bound to regard them as they were so to regard any other part of the law of the land. Two years ago, when his distinguished predecessor at the Board of Trade—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—was in office, he felt it his duty steadily to oppose not only any alteration of these rules, but any such Parliamentary inquiry as would re-open the whole subject. His right hon. Friend said he thought there would be every disadvantage in appointing a Committee to inquire into a matter which all maritime nations believed had been satisfactorily settled. Everything that had happened since had confirmed the view which his right hon. Friend then took. His hon. and gallant Friend said the two additional rules had not been assented to by other parties. In that he believed his hon. and gallant Friend was entirely mistaken. In the Papers which had just been laid upon the Table of the House, it would be found that there was transmitted to the Foreign Office an Ordinance of the German Empire, passed at the end of last year to prevent collisions at sea, and which Ordinance embodied the whole of our rules, including the two additional and interpreting rules. All the maritime nations in the world would be surprised if after a solemn inquiry Parliament abrogated rules which they had adopted, with which they were satisfied, and with respect to which they had made no complaint. Nothing, indeed, would surprise them more than to find that the Parliament of England had come to the conclusion that the subject was beset with doubts and difficulties, and that the rules were capable of serious change and improvement. Of course, he did not mean to deny that any particular set of rules might in some respects be improved; but he maintained that it would be most unwise to unsettle rules which had been adopted by all maritime countries for the sake of the slight improvements that had been indicated by the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion. The opinions of gentlemen in this country who had a right to be heard on the subject were adverse to the proposed inquiry. The Papers which would be laid before the House in the course of a few days, showed that Lloyd's Salvage Association had strongly expressed an opinion in favour of the existing regulations, as had also the Irish Steampacket Company, and Mr. Gray Hill, the secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. That very day a gentleman of high authority on a matter of this kind—Mr. Harper, the Secretary of Lloyd's Salvage Association—had called upon him and expressed an earnest hope that he would not agree to the appointment of the Committee proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Mr. Harper stated his belief that the rules were for all practical purposes complete, and that even if some slight improvements might be made in them, frightful danger might arise from introducing uncertainty and confusion as to the rule of the road at sea into the minds of the seafaring population, who had to act upon that rule under the most critical circumstances. Mr. Harper concluded by saying that his opinion was shared by the 50 or 60 nautical men connected either with the Royal Navy or the Mercantile Marine who were members of the Association. With these facts before him, and having regard to the view taken by his predecessor, it would be impossible for him to advise the House to enter upon the inquiry.

said, he had heard the decision of the right hon. Gentleman with great regret. He was not prepared for any hesitation on the part of the Government to go into an inquiry upon this question. He would undertake to bring hundreds of men who would tell them that the present rules of the road at sea were the cause of the loss of a large amount of life and property annually at sea. In respect to the decisions of the Courts of Law upon those matters, he would remind the House that those Courts did not always decide in accordance with the regulations that had been laid down. If a master followed precisely the rules laid down, he would very often lose his ship instead of saving it. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman dissented from this statement; but he (Mr. Bentinck) had had 30 years' practical experience afloat, and from his own experience he could quote hundreds of cases in which vessels were lost by adhering rigidly to those rules, and vessels that had escaped by departing from them. In the face of all those facts he thought that the right hon. Gentleman incurred a very grave responsibility in refusing his acquiescence to this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman assumed the doctrine of infallibility in respect to those rules when he said that they were so good that they could scarcely be improved, or, if they could, the danger of so improving them would be much greater than any benefit arising from such a change could possibly be. He (Mr. Bentinck) would undertake to produce evidence before a Committee to show that the observance of those rules was the cause of great loss of life and property. It was the commonest expression in the world for seamen, in speaking of the observance of those rules, to say—though using a somewhat coarser phrase than he did—"It was going to the infernal regions by Act of Parliament." Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman opposite told the House that they ought not to assent to this inquiry. What could be the objection to this Committee? If his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) could not make out a case for the alteration of the rules, there would, of course, be an end of the question. If, on the other hand, he succeeded in proving his case, then it would be admitted that the time had come for an alteration of the laws. In refusing this Committee he considered that the right hon. Gentleman was taking upon himself the consequences of the loss of a large amount of life and property.

, having taken some interest in this question, wished to state why in his judgment it would be inexpedient to institute an inquiry at the present time. This was not an English question only—it was a question which concerned the whole world, and it was most desirable that Parliament, or the Government of any particular country, should not take any step which would be in advance of public opinion. Now, he ventured to state that the inquiry proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) would be considerably in advance of public opinion. He believed the great majority both of shipmasters and of shipowners were satisfied with the present regulations; and even among those who were not thoroughly satisfied he had reason to believe that no very definite opinions would be found, and certainly nothing approaching to agreements as to the amendments to be made. It would thus be a misfortune, even in the interest of the view taken by the hon. Baronet, to appoint a Committee which could only hear imperfect and crude evidence, and therefore come to a lame conclusion upon a subject which, if a Committee was appointed, could not be re-opened for some years. It had been stated that the Board of Trade and the Trinity House were opposed to change in the existing state of things, and he could, of his own knowledge, add that the permanent administration at the Admiralty, including Admiral Richards, Hydrographer to the Navy, held a similar opinion. Under such circumstances, he thought it would be a pity to enter into a premature discussion of this question, and that it would be better to let it stand over until they had more positive evidence to bring forward. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion.

confessed that, upon this occasion his sympathy was, to a large extent, with the Board of Trade. They had been for some years educating themselves up to this point. We had been the pioneers of this question, and nation after nation had adopted our rules. Our fishermen around the coast understood every one of our signals. Nothing, however, but the strongest evidence of the inestimable advantages of another system would justify us in making any change. Although he did not consider our system a perfect one, nevertheless he had seen nothing better up to that moment. He was strengthened in this view of the matter by the representations he had received from his constituents. He, however, should not object to a mere inquiry into the causes of the collisions which had occurred. Those collisions had not certainly diminished, if they had not increased. Those collisions, and the great loss of life occasioned by them, formed, in his mind, a strong ground for inquiry. He did not see that much mischief would come out of such an inquiry. But as the Government, who were responsible for the administration of our maritime affairs, had seen fit to take another course, he should doubt the prudence of his hon. and gallant Friend in pressing his Motion to a division.

regretted he could not acquiesce in the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves). If the Government had expressed any intention to institute an inquiry he would have withdrawn his Motion; but as they had not done so, he must ask the opinion of the House upon it.

, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, hoped that the House would not be startled by a rather sudden transition from the marine topic they had been discussing, to one that related chiefly to the land. It was now 10 years since the last Committee on the Ordnance Survey, as it was still called, had presented their Report, and he would wish to call the attention of the House to the progress of the survey, and especially to its present state in this part of the United Kingdom. Nearly a century had elapsed since the triangulation of the kingdom was commenced by General Roy—in 1784—which, after occupying upwards of 70 years in its accomplishment, was carried across the Channel in 1858 by Sir Henry James, and united with those of France and Belgium during the three following years. It was a splendid and costly national work, and one which had taxed to the utmost the patience and skill of the engineering service, and so perfect in result that it left nothing to be desired, except that it should be made the best and earliest use of. It seemed strange that those who had borne the chief burden of paying for it should hitherto have enjoyed the least share of its fruits. He need not tell the House that the chief expense had been incurred when the triangulation was completed—once done, it was done for good and all, and was equally available for every part of the kingdom. In order to obtain a map of any part of the country, any one or any series of these triangles could be filled up by a detailed survey, of mathematical accuracy, and upon any scale. What, however, had been the use made of it as regarded England? Would it be credited that the only map we had of this country, south of Lancashire and Yorkshire, was the old 1-inch map of which the first sheets were published in 1796!—a map which was full of errors of detail from the first, owing to an inexperienced and inefficient staff quite new to the work, which, had it been originally perfect, the mere efflux of time would have rendered obsolete. Its inaccuracies were described by Sir Henry James himself to the Committee of 1861, as "perfectly astounding in character." The history of the matter was this. Just as the work had reached the northern counties, in 1825, a Government survey of Ireland became immediately necessary. Taught by the blunders and defects of the 1-inch scale map in England, the Government determined on a 6-inch scale for Ireland. It proceeded at first with appalling slowness, but ended in a genuine triumph—a map being produced which was admitted by the first judges of Europe, assembled at the Statistical Congress at Brussels in 1853, to be the finest piece of topographical art ever seen in any country. At this Congress the whole subject of national maps, or cadastres, formed a subject of active discussion; and the unanimous conclusion of the statists there assembled from each country—including Mr. Farr, who was appointed by the Registrar General to represent England—was in favour of a scale of 12–500th of a mile, commonly known in this country as the "25-inch scale," to which it nearly corresponded. It was originally proposed by the great astronomer, Laplace, to Napoleon, and adopted in France in 1807, and had the advantage of giving, within a fraction, a square inch to the English acre. The Emperor recommended that it should be accompanied by a smaller map—tableau d'assemblage—which, singularly enough, nearly corresponded with the scale of our Irish survey. These two scales were accordingly used in proceeding with the long interrupted map of England, throughout the northern counties, and for Scotland; the original map of all the other English counties still remaining as backward as ever. In the last and in the present Session, he (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns) had put the question to the Government, when we might expect "justice to England" in this matter, first through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in whose Department the survey then was, and again of the Chief Commissioner of Works, to whom it had since fallen. The answer he got was the same on each occasion in succession, that the survey would not be completed for 15 years. This reminded him of the experience of some travellers in Wales, who, in answer to each inquiry on the road, found they were further from their destination. But the question was really a serious one. The 6-inch map of Ireland, admirable as it was, had actually gone through revision in a less period than that; indeed, Sir Henry James had stated in his evidence that even the best maps required revision every 14 years. Yet our old 1-inch Ordnance map of the last century still remained, literally, a book of blunders, uncorrected; and, worse than that, a sort of "father of lies," for all the numerous progeny of local maps that were copied were based upon it. He could not help asking—"What enemy hath done this?" It looked like a conspiracy of neglect. It could hardly be called a question of expense, for the sale of the maps repaid a large share of the expenses of publication, and the main work and cost had been encountered when the triangulation was completed 90 years ago. It had been given in evidence that nearly £3,000,000 had been uselessly squandered upon partial maps for Tithe Commissions, Charity Commissions, Poor Law Commissions, Inclosure and Copyhold Commissions, all of which would have had one perfect and indisputable reference had the Government cadastral map been carried out in England. The Land Tenure Report, presented last Session but one, had shown every civilized country but ourselves possessed of a cadastral map to accompany the registries of title, define the boundaries, and simplify the conveyance of land. Sir Richard Griffiths' letter to the Royal Commission of 1858 had attested its value in Ireland as almost beyond description for all the purposes he described—for registration, for determining questions of conterminous property, settlement of disputes between landlord and tenant, and tenant and labourer, equitable adjustment of rating and taxation, drainage, sanitary matters, besides geological and hydrographical inquiries, and road and railroad engineering, for the elective franchise, and the Landed Estates Court. Yet here we were at the end of nearly 80 years from the commencement of the work, with 27 English counties and the whole of Wales without any reliable survey, and with the prospect of half a generation to wait before we were to be on a footing with Ireland and Scotland in this matter. Even the Isle of Man had got its cadastral map, and could laugh at Wales and England; while in the last meagre Blue-book of the annual "progress"—as it is humourously called—of the cadastral survey we find, in place of half-a-dozen English counties, that—

"Jerusalem and Mount Sinai are completed, and the map of our Army's route in Abyssinia, as far as Magdala, well advanced."

"If the annual vote was £150,000, it could be finished in 12 years for £1, 800,000; if the vote was only £90,000 a-year, it would take 21 years and cost £90,000 more."

said, the hon. Member had by his speech no doubt explained enough to the House to satisfy them that this was a subject that could not be disposed of easily or summarily. It was one that had engaged the attention of Parliament at various intervals during a period of 88 years, and which had entailed upon the country an expense up to this time of £3,255,000, and that in the result they had only just arrived at one complete 1-inch map of the United Kingdom. During that interval Parliament had again and again discussed how the survey should be carried on. The first system adopted was condemned on account of its imperfections, it having produced maps on which reliance could no longer be placed. No doubt considerable improvements had since taken place, and we could now compete in that respect with any other country. The result of those intermittent, and he might say those fitful discussions of this question, had been to lead to the adoption of three scales of maps—namely, the 1-2500th—commonly called the 25-inch—the 6-inch, and the 1-inch. The intention was to complete the highly populated parts of the country on the 25-inch scale, and the other parts in which hills and heaths abounded on the 6-inch scale. The hon. Gentleman regretted that the survey did not proceed more rapidly. According to the Return for 1870 there was a staff of 1,800 persons, including the military, engaged upon it. There was a great difficulty, even if it were desirable, in suddenly increasing very largely an establishment of that kind, every man of which worked in relation to every other, and must have special knowledge and training. It could only, therefore, be increased, if at all, gradually and by adding a certain number of men every year.

observed that Sir Henry James stated that he could finish a map in 12 years for one sum, which he mentioned, and another in 21 years for a different sum, and that the latter was preferred.

No doubt Sir Henry James, if he had been allowed 10 years ago to organize a larger staff, might have been able to proceed with the work more rapidly. But reference was now made to the existing staff, and to the difficulty connected with an increased rapidity of the present survey. It was also necessary to consider the annual expense of the survey, to which there was necessarily a limit. Having regard to the demands that were made for the maintenance of the Army, the Navy, and every other branch of the public service, unless the taxation of the country were indefinitely extended, a certain sum must be allocated for this particular purpose; and the Government were of opinion that £100,000 a-year was sufficient to set apart for the prosecution of the Ordnance Survey. He confessed his inability to follow the argument of his hon. Friend when he contended that a rapid survey might be secured for a small additional outlay.

explained that Sir Henry James could complete the map in 12 years for £90,000 less than the cost of the map for 21 years.

That sum did not go far in an expenditure of £2,000,000. It was purely an arithmetical question. For example, with an additional outlay of £12,000 a-year you would gain, in proportion, about a year, or little less, in the completion of the survey. The expenditure of £100,000 a-year had been the limit sanctioned by successive Governments. They had to spend about £1,300,000 more on the survey, which, at the rate of £100,000 per annum, it would take 13 years to complete. Again, there would be a danger in employing an enormous staff on such a work with the prospect of their being speedily discharged, because in that case the men would feel very little interest in their work, and the efficiency of the establishment, now so universally recognized, might be impaired. He could not, therefore, hold out the hope of any great diminution of the time required to finish the survey. All things considered, there was no great cause for dissatisfaction with the progress made. The Government were much interested in the prosetion of the undertaking, because it was most desirable for many public purposes to have an accurate map of the country on a large scale. Again, if too long an interval elapsed between the commencement and the conclusion of the survey, the constant changes occurring in reference to land would render the earlier maps comparatively valueless. They could not have an accurate map of the whole country unless they employed some standing body to revise and rectify it according to the changes occurring from year to year. The establishment in Ireland for that purpose, and the revision of the valuation, cost £25,000 per annum; the corresponding charge in the case of England must necessarily be very large indeed, and statutory powers would also be required for the purpose. Before embarking in such an expensive enterprise the matter would demand very grave investigation. With regard to the facility for transferring land, his hon. Friend thought that would be afforded by a 25-inch scale map of the whole country. He now held in his hand one of the books of reference for a single parish, that he had taken at random. The parish, he found, contained 12,459 acres; there were in it no fewer than 2,299 separate plots marked, with the quantities scheduled. There was the basis of every single plot of land, with its area; but not the least information was afforded as to how those plots were brought together in separate holdings, or as to who were the owners. Without such information as that, he could not understand how the land survey might be made the basis of any improved system of land transfer. Having heard the various arguments brought forward in the House for giving facility in the transfer of land, he had come to the conclusion that hon. Gentlemen were on the wrong scent altogether when they confined themselves to the mere machinery connected with the transfer; for the real difficulty was that which arose from the state of the law. As long as they had a law which allowed all kinds of interests to be created—present and prospective—which separated the freehold title from the possession, the possession from the right to the possession, and which gave rise to all kinds of difficulties affecting occupation, so long would the man coming into possession of property with such complications attached to it be at a loss to know what it was he really possessed. If the completion of the survey would facilitate transfer, this was an additional reason for expediting the work; but he feared that it must, under present circumstances, take some years, and could not be materially accelerated without risk of diminishing the accuracy and value of the maps. He hoped that, considering the promise of the Government to deal with the question of transfer as soon as they could, and their consequent interest in accelerating the survey, his hon. Friend would be satisfied with having called attention to the matter, and would not ask the House to adopt the Resolution.

regretted that, after the time and money which had been devoted to the survey and the little result at present to be shown for it, the right hon. Gentleman had not given a more satisfactory assurance. It was hardly creditable that this country should not have as complete a survey as continental countries had. If any further outlay or any augmentation of the staff was requisite, the expense would be to some extent recouped by the sale of the maps. Before becoming a Member of the House he had some experience in preparing Private Bills, and never had any difficulty, even in winter, in obtaining the requisite plans and sections of important projects. This question had some bearing on the transfer of land, but this was scarcely a proper occasion for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. In spite of our complicated system of conveyancing, there was always plenty of land in the market, but the investigation of title and the absence of good maps certainly added to the expense of transfer. He hoped to receive the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite to a Bill which he had introduced on the subject.

said, he was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the survey would occupy 13 years longer, and that the portion first commenced might then have to be begun over again. It would surely be more economical to expedite the work, so that it would not so soon become useless. As to the difficulty of finding the requisite staff, this was a question of money, for plenty of talent existed in the country if a demand was made for it. A thoroughly good map was essential to greater facilities of transfer; and, on the Continent, where conveyancing was much easier and less expensive, such maps existed. They could not expect to have an easy transfer of land while they had the existing complications in connection with the title of land. The Commission of 1857 said that but for prejudice there was no reason why the transfer of land should not be as simple as the transfer of stock or ships. Fifteen years had elapsed and they were now no nearer a solution of this question than ever. In transferring personal estate they transferred the corpus, leaving the trust outside. The Bank of England, for example, would not go into the question of trusts, the only question with them being, who was upon the register. But in the case of land, speaking generally, all these elaborate trusts were affixed to the title, so that unless all the persons interested were settled with, the land could not be transferred. As long as this system existed the difficulties and expense attending the transfer of land would continue. They must either forbid the creation of these complicated interests—a measure for which the House did not seem prepared—or they must divorce the equitable from the legal interest in land so that the corpus might be transferred perfectly, and the equitable interests made to depend not upon the land, but upon the personal integrity of the trustee. In some way or other, in every European country the transfer of land was easy and inexpensive. It was strange that this country should be a remarkable exception, and all the stranger because most of the Members of this, and all the Members of the other House, were deeply interested in the question. There must be a thorough measure of reform, and for that purpose there must be a thorough map. Much could not be said for a survey which had been 80 years in progress, and had cost £3,000,000, having little to show for it. It ought to be got out of hand at once, for it was a matter of vital interest to poor as well as rich. He had lately cited a case in which a comparatively poor man bought a small piece of land for £20, and the legal expenses were £10. No blame attached to the lawyers employed, who were men of the highest respectability, and did not charge a fraction more than was necessary. Such a state of things was intolerable. The transfer of stock cost nothing; but a man of moderate means was practically precluded from investing in land, because he really did not know what the transfer would cost him, and, moreover, did not know after all whether he should have a good title.

said, he would not enter into the question incidentally raised of the transfer of land, because it was undesirable to commence an incidental conversation on an intricate question arising out of a matter which was not before the House. It was impossible for anyone in speaking offhand on so large a topic not to commit himself to more or less than he desired to express. With a regard for the scientific as well as the legal and social well-being of the country, he must join with those who urged the Government to push on this work of the national survey with less consideration for mere economy and more zeal for the general convenience of the people. At the same time, he could not press the Motion with any expectation of seeing the undertaking finished, for he saw no end to the work, which was no sooner done than it must be begun again. Every new street, every new house, every squire who dug a new pond and threw down a hedgerow falsified the Ordnance map. On this ground, and in order that the initiatory standard might be reached, the work should be pushed on, while the question of staff ought not to stand in the way. By the introduction of the competitive system, with its contingent of failures, a large class of proportionably educated, but unemployed, and therefore discontented people had been created; and in the Ordnance survey means of honourable employment might easily be found for persons of this class of sufficient education and good character. There was no fear that the map would not be a marketable commodity. According to the report recently presented from Sir Henry James, his department was remunerative, both in its English maps and its reproductions of historical documents, and in surveys such as those of the Holy Land; and if the 25-inch scale were carried all over the country, the prime cost of so noble a map would, he was satisfied, be more than met by the demand. It was not creditable to us if in a realm of such small area they did not provide the means of carrying on a survey on a uniform scale all over the country. When the map had been completed, and a Government organization established for altering it as it became requisite, he would recommend that it should be made by Act of Parliament a legal document of primary necessity. If to every deed or will dealing with an appreciable area of country the corresponding sheets of the Ordnance map were attached, with such manuscript additions or alterations as were needed to make the documents self-explanatory, legal and scientific proceedings would be greatly simplified. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. There were, no doubt, difficulties in the introduction of estate boundaries; but he did not understand why the name of the owner of every distinctive piece of land having an appreciable boundary should not be engraved upon the map; and he was convinced that such an addition would naturally add to the practical value of the survey.

observed that after the discussion which had taken place he should not divide the House, feeling confident that the Government would give the question their best consideration.

rose to call the attention of the House to the partial and unsatisfactory operation of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act in the Election of Aldermen, and to move a Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said, that the subject with which he had to deal was admitted by all reasonable persons to be a grievance. By the Corporations Reform Acts of 1833 and 1834 it was provided that, in addition to the councilmen to be elected for the wards, a certain number of aldermen were also to be chosen. But instead of intrusting the election of aldermen to the burgesses of the wards, the Act of Parliament relating to the subject gave it entirely to the councillors voting together. Every member of the Council was competent to vote for any number of persons not exceeding the number of aldermen to be elected. The result was that a bare majority of the councillors in every borough could elect the whole body of aldermen, the latter being one-third of the number of councillors. The consequence was that, unless the councilmen chose to give to the minority some sort of representation, they could unfairly exclude them from all share in the upper ranks of municipal honours. By that means a large number of gentlemen who from their position in society and the taxes which they paid were best entitled to take part in the municipal affairs of the country were altogether excluded from the management of local concerns. The object of the original division of boroughs into wards was to do that which in the election of aldermen had signally failed—namely, to give a fair representation to all the different sections of the community, and if that had been done no complaint would have been made. It was not enacted that aldermen should be distinctly assigned to certain wards; but that was done as a matter of custom, and aldermen were generally understood to represent the wards to which they had been assigned. He was far from imputing to any corporation, though some might of late years have been extravagant, any charge of general mismanagement; but what he did say was this—that there were corporations which gave all their municipal honours as a reward solely for political opinion. The Municipal Corporations Reform Act, while removing many abuses, had failed to effect an alteration in that respect. In discussing this question in 1835, Lord Melbourne cited from the Report of the Corporation Commissioners the following passage:—

"Now let us look at the Corporation of Leicester…. From the Mayor to the humblest servant of the Corporation, every office has been filled by persons of the Corporation, or so-called Tory party, to the total exclusion of all who entertained different opinions, however wealthy, however intelligent, however respectable. Now, let me ask your Lordships, what do you think of the working of such a system as this?"—[3 Hansard, xxix. 1347.]

regretted that a question of so much importance did not excite more interest in the House, for it was a question of no mean importance to the good government of the country, and it was desirable that the greatest amount of local interest within the boroughs should be brought to bear on local matters. The fact of a man being a Whig or a Tory, a Radical or a Conservative, could not be a reason why he should be best able to supervise the minute arrangements of a borough. Lord Ellenborough, in a speech upon this subject, had spoken of the professed object of dividing boroughs into wards to be to give to all classes of the community a fair chance of being equally represented. If that had been the object of the Act, it had lamentably failed. What had invariably happened under the present law was that a majority of town councillors were but too often elected on political principles only, and then the majority of town councillors, aided by such aldermen as did not then go out of office, elected aldermen exclusively from one political party, and so the opinions of the burgesses were neutralized. The fact was that the burgesses should elect the aldermen; but the objection to that was that it would destroy the double character of the corporation corresponding to that of Parliament. The second suggestion was that the councillors of each ward should elect their own aldermen; but the manifest objection to that was that the aldermen so elected would merely increase the political strength of the councillors electing them; and nothing could more completely defeat the intentions of those who framed the Municipal Corporations Act. The third suggestion was that aldermen should be elected by the cumulative votes of the burgesses; hitherto, cumulative voting had been eminently successful wherever it had been tried; and the probability was that in this case it would result in the election of the best men. Nothing could be worse than the present system, under which it would take six years to correct a mistake, and in that time irreparable injury might be done by a self-willed majority. In Leeds, as in many other boroughs, the aldermen and the mayors had been elected exclusively from the predominant political party; and the consequence was, that while some of the best townsmen had been excluded from office on account of their politics, the position of aldermen had been held by men on whom it never ought to have been conferred. There was another question—how far political partizanship regulated the giving of offices. It was perfectly possible that might not have been intended; but he should like a Return to be made showing how certain persons had been elected to certain offices; what was their qualifications for that office; and how far they had always voted for the political party in power. He knew aldermen who had become rate collectors; and, in fact, the offices of alderman and town councillor had become a sort of harbour of refuge for people of a certain political phase or class, and offices were, in far too many instances, conferred upon such people as political partizans only. He was, therefore, very much obliged to his hon. Friend for bringing this subject before the House. What he said the other night with reference to the borough of which he spoke applied with ten-fold force to a municipality so large as that of Leeds. In almost every municipality in the North of England the corporations were supposed to be Liberal, as it was called. Why? Not always because the people so desired it. So far as town councils were concerned, the elections fairly represented both sides; but in the corporation the minority was not merely swamped, but the minority was turned into a majority by the mere action of the aldermanic votes. Six years was too long a time to allow that state of things to exist without change. He, therefore, seconded the Motion.

said, he hoped the very dismal picture they had just heard of the working of municipal institutions was to some extent due to the personal experience and misfortunes of his hon. Friend, and that all was not quite so bad as he had represented. At all events, it was remarkable that this grievance had been so long pent up; for, so far as he recollected, with the exception of a slight discussion the other night, this was the first time they had heard of it. Ever since he had been in office he had continually received applications from various boroughs through-out the country to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of re-division of wards, on the ground that the balance of wealth and population had altered. What was the grievance of the case before us? The election of aldermen by a majority of the Common Council. A very great portion of legislation had been directed to extend the powers of corporations, and it would be a grievous thing if the most important members of those bodies were to be elected without reference to their fitness for their respective offices, but merely on account of their political opinions. It was undoubtedly the fact that in a great many cases there were aldermen representing both sides of political opinion, and he was constantly receiving evidence of the efficiency, vigour, and zeal with which the affairs of various municipalities were conducted. One of the remedies suggested by the hon. Member for the evil of which he complained was, that the selection of aldermen should be direct by the burgesses themselves, and much might be said in favour of that proposition; but it was, no doubt, the object of the framers of the Act, in leaving the selection to a body of men already themselves elected by the ratepayers, to bring into the municipal government men of influence who would not expose themselves to the risk, annoyance, and expense of a popular election. Another alternative which had been suggested was that the Common Councilmen of each ward should elect the aldermen for that ward. He thought it would be very difficult to carry out any such arrangement. The third proposal was that the system of cumulative voting should be allowed in these elections. No doubt a great deal could be said in favour of that proposition; but it might be objected to it that it was founded on the recognition of the fact that politics played a principal part in the election of the aldermen of corporations, and upon the consequent desire of the hon. Member to obtain a fair representation of political opinion. Now, he did not think that politics ought to enter into the view of Parliament in dealing with this question. What was wanted was, not to secure the ascendancy or proper representation of this or that political party in the borough, but to obtain the best possible representation of the intelligence and public spirit of the locality. The present system had been in force for 40 years, and Parliament ought scarcely to be called upon to condemn it as a failure on almost the first occasion that its attention had been directed to the question. He would suggest to the hon. Member that, instead of pressing the present Resolution, he would adopt a better mode of testing the opinion of the House on the subject by bringing in a Bill, and thereby submitting the matter to the House in a definite shape.

said, that on looking over the Notice Paper he found on it Notices of Resolution which ought never to have been brought before the House. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that when an hon. Member disapproved of an Act or any part of an Act, the proper course for him to pursue would be to introduce a Bill for its repeal, instead of wasting the time of the House by the discussion of abstract Resolutions. He would not discuss the question whether the Municipal Corporations Act had worked well or ill; but he objected to the horrible, the terrible waste of time which was caused by the discussion of Resolutions like that now before the House.

said, he did not think the time of the House had been wasted in discussing the subject which he had brought forward. Having succeeded in obtaining a discussion on an admitted grievance, he was satisfied, and would now, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

defended the scheme proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, which had been assented to by the House, and said that no better proof could be be afforded of the excellence of their scheme than the very school which the hon. Member had brought under the consideration of the House.

supported the Motion. He had no doubt that if they gave the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) a certain amount of money he would apply it with great ability; but the question was, whether there was justice in the policy which obtained these funds? There was a great difference in the theory and in the application of a statute. He understood the present theory of education to be this—that the poor were to be educated in what are called elementary schools; the inhabitants of the district were to be rated to provide elementary education for the poorer classes, and the poor were to be rated for that purpose; whilst the education, which under these old endowments they had free, or by a trifling payment, would be taken away from them, in order to facilitate the education of the class above them—a class much better able to provide education for themselves. Such a policy as that was, in his opinion, destined to create division between the middle and lower classes; and the inevitable result must be that they would virtually keep down the lower class from rising by means of the education which the founders of these schools provided for them. That was a most singular exhibition of the democratic principle. They were going to create a second-class aristocracy at the expense of the poor.

said, the object of the scheme was to give a higher kind of education to the poor.

objected to discussing the scheme of the Commissioners at such a late hour, and moved the adjournment of the debate.

remarked that the result of adjourning the discussion would be to give effect to the scheme, as the time specified by the Act for objecting to it would have elapsed.

said, he had pointed out that when the Public Schools Act was under discussion in that House it would render the provision, especially in regard to the Endowed Schools Act, a perfect farce; for they all knew that whatever might be the demerits of a scheme, if it could only be brought under the attention of that House by a Motion towards the end of the Session, it would be impossible in that House to deal with it; unless, therefore, they required in both these Acts—the Public Schools Act and the Endowed Schools Act—an Amendment to the effect that these schemes should always be presented at the beginning of the Session, the provision for bringing them under the consideration of that House might easily be defeated—nay, would almost always be defeated.