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 pur

poses 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 hou. 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

of Six Inches to the Statute Mile." That was his justification for having voted as he had done in the last division, for had he believed that the 25-inch scale was being carried on in England he should not have opposed the Vote for the same scale in Scotland.

MR. HENLEY 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.

MR. BLACKBURN 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.

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

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON 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 IIouse was, that no further surveys should be made upon the 25-inch scale." When a survey had been already made upon that scale, as he believed was the case in the county of Durham, it would, of course, remain as a matter of record; but he interpreted the Vote of the House as implying that no further survey ought to be made upon that scale.

MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's) said, that the document appended to the Estimates was calculated to mislead the House. It was on the 6-inch scale, and now they were told that the gentleman who had charge of the survey knew nothing about it, although it was made under himself, and the map had his name attached. Mr. Soffit, an eminent mining engineer, declared before the Committee of which he (Mr. Ellice) was a member, that a map of twenty-five inches to the mile would be inadequate for mineral property, and that a map of eleven feet per mile, or something

like that, would be required. They had this fact before them, that Estimates were made and put before the House on one scale of survey, whilst the Ordnance had been conducting a 25-inch survey, and that apparently without the knowledge of the Treasury?

MR. ROEBUCK 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.

MR. SPEAKER 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.

Resolution, as amended, agreed to. Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORD 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 forma, with a view to having them both consolidated into the one Bill. He would move the second reading of the one immediately under consideration.

SIR GEORGE GREY 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.

MR. MOWBRAY 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.

MR. HENLEY 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 forma style of doing business; and he thought it would be much better to adhere to the forms of the House, and take the discussion upon the second reading. Otherwise, he thought that the better course would be that both

Bills should be withdrawn, and one brought in with the sanction of the Government, on which the noble Marquess could move any Amendment he thought proper.

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

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that it would be much

better to adhere to the old rules of the

House, and discuss the principle of the Bill the second reading. upon

MR. WALPOLE 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.

LORD JOHN MANNERS 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.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON 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.

Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.

MARRIED WOMEN'S REVERSIONARY

INTEREST BILL-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. DOBBS said, the Bill as it stood would interfere with all contracts subsistwas, therefore, an ex post facto law. He ing between persons already married, and proposed, as an Amendment on

"Page 1, Clause 1, lines 5 and 6, leave out 'from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for every married woman,' and insert 'it shall be lawful for every married woman who shall be married after the passing of this Act.'"

MR. MALINS 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.

SIR ERSKINE PERRY 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 Com

mittee.