To Sir Robert Peel   October 27, 1843.

LIVERPOOL MERCURY October 27, 1843. | Letter No. III.

To the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel, Bart,, &c.

Sir – Without any prefatory remarks I shall at once come to that stage of the Ordnance survey of Ireland, in 1829, when the evidence of the superintending officer¹ was given before a Committee of the House of Commons; the substance of this evidence was, that the survey was progressing in a vigorous and satisfactory manner. In the course of this or the following year, some plans were forwarded to Mr Griffith, who sent competent persons to commence the valuation of the district which they represented; their utter unfitness for the required purposes was proved, and consequently they were rejected by Mr. Griffith.

Now, either Mr. Griffith had, at the commencement of the survey been consulted relative to the nature of the plans required, or he had not. If he had, then his rejection of the plans shows that no attention had been paid to his demands; if he had not, does it not prove a degree of imprudence almost incredible on the part of the Royal Engineers, to persist so long without any reference to the Superintendent of the valuation? The wisdom, of submitting at first, the maps of a few parishes for his inspection, appears so evident, that it is hardly possible to believe that it could be overlooked by a number of individuals, specially selected on account of their superior scientific attainments. The Royal Engineers, however, had been over one-third of the Island before this was discovered. How can this indiscretion be accounted for? Only by assuming the existence of a degree of unwarranted self-sufficiency, which impelled these individuals onward, till Mr. Griffith arrested them in their blind career, and exposed the absurdity of their operations.

An attempt at a reply to my first letter has been made by some evidently unauthorized person, who styles himself ‘Veritas’.² This individual ascribed the rejection of the plans to a deficiency in the quantity of detail. I merely notice this single remark of his crude production, because I have reason to believe that the opinion expressed by him is entertained by many. Granting that the plans were rejected, purely because of a defect in the quantity of detail, and assuming for argument’s sake the accuracy of what was done, one point was proved – that the Royal Engineers were ignorant of the quantity of detail necessary, and, therefore, should have applied to Mr. Griffith for information on this head. I, however, assert, that the plans were not only defective in point of quantity, but that they were grossly incorrect also. Mr. Griffith returned the maps, with a list of their defects and errors; if that list to be in existence, to it, Sir, I fearlessly appeal in support of my assertion. That this list comprised letters of commission as well as omission; it referred to errors in the areas, boundaries, roads, houses, and all the other detail surveyed. The superintendent of the survey took several plans to the ground, and tested them by personal examination. Had this been done sooner, it might have averted many subsequent disasters. The roads and boundaries occupied his special attention; they were erroneous, the maps which he examined were condemned, and the country which they caricatured was re-surveyed. If this be not proof of the incompetency of the individuals who had previously certified the accuracy of these plans, I labour under sad delusion.

The mortification of the Royal Engineers, at this time, is more easily conceived than described; they saw themselves subjected to the animadversions³ of scientific men, and they trembled at the idea of their proceedings being made known to the public. In 1831 some parties had advanced as far as Dublin and Athlone,⁴ all were now ordered back, and an ineffectual effort was made to revise the work, and render the old plans serviceable. The vain attempt was in most cases abandoned, and a re-survey resorted to. In these cases the original plans and other documents were reduced to ashes or otherwise destroyed. The Superintendent will doubtless remember a portion of an order which appeared in 1833 – ‘The plans are to be burned in the presence of an officer’; and the plans referred to were burned, while an engineer officer, with cocked hat and waving plume stood by, a pensive witness of this memorable scene, till the last dearly purchased smoked-wreath had mingled with the atmosphere. Between 1831 and 1836 some maps were patched up and rendered passable, but it were well if this had never been attempted; the cost of examining, re-examining, scraping, altering, and shifting, exceeded what would be required for a new survey. Even at the present moment, so much do many of these maps and their field notes disagree, that were the former destroyed, nothing similar could be compiled from the latter.

Will it be said that I exaggerate? One fact will prove the credibility of all my statements – a sum of £200,000 was wasted in the production of this ‘Comedy of Errors’.⁵ Judge, then, Sir, the extent of that failure, which incurred such an enormous expense. Am I not justified in stating that if all our public works be executed in a similar manner, to them may be referred one great cause of the present enormous taxation?

How necessary, then, Sir, it is that persons engaged in these important undertakings should have some interest at stake depending on the success of their exertions. If this work had been entrusted to civil engineers, I feel assured that such disgraceful blundering would never have taken place. The jealous regard which a civil engineer must entertain for his professional character, compels him to think before he acts, and would prove an insuperable barrier against such a course of errors as I have detailed.

The ordnance survey of Ireland is now, I believe, completed. It is a highly useful work, though by no means matchless. But to whom, I ask, is the country indebted for its present usefulness? Without question to Mr. Griffith. Had he been deficient in either professional knowledge or moral courage, when he discovered the true state of things in 1829 and 1830, this public work would have proved a discredit to the age – a record of national incapacity, unparalleled in the history of similar undertakings.

Fearing that my statements, if used without proper restriction, might injure the character of deserving men, I would, in conclusion, distinctly say, that I unhesitatingly acquit both assistants and sappers⁶ of all blame; they acted according to order. In those days, as in the present, these classes comprised many persons of superior abilities, whose usefulness would have been apparent, had not their exertions been paralyzed by a system of discipline incompatible with their vocation.

SPECTATOR⁷ | Dublin, October 24, 1843.

RI MS JT/1/TYP/11/3912-3914

LT Transcript Only