ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM— ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT).

HC Deb 18 June 1855 vol 138 cc2154-222

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [15th June], "That this House views with deep and increasing concern the state of the Nation, and is of opinion, that the I manner in which merit and efficiency have been sacrificed, in public appointments, to party and family influences, and to a blind adherence to routine, has given rise to great misfortunes, and threatens to bring discredit upon the national character, and to involve the Country in grave disasters:"—(Mr. Layard:)— And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "recommends to the earliest attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the necessity of a careful revision of our various Official Establishments, with a view to simplify and facilitate the transaction of public business, and, by instituting judicious tests of merit, as well as by removing obstructions to its fair promotion and legitimate rewards, to secure to the service of the State the largest available proportion of the energy and intelligence for which the people of this Country are distinguished,"—(Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton,)—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

VISCOUNT GODERICH

said, he considered it a very fortunate coincidence which had led to the reading of the Report of the Committee on the Army before Sebastopol on the evening upon which the debate upon the question of administrative reform was to be resumed. He thought that the reading of that Report must have recalled vividly to the recollection of the House those circumstances which had led, in a great measure, to the excitement now prevalent in the country on the subject of administrative reform. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. B. Lytton), in his speech the other night, stated his opinion that the demand for administrative reform first originated in the disappointment felt by the public at the course pursued by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton soon after he took office. He was not inclined to deny that there had been a wide-spread disappointment at the course pursued by the noble Lord, but, at the same time, he could not concur in the opinion that the strong feeling which existed on the subject of administrative reform had its origin mainly in that circumstance. In his opinion it was the lamentable facts which had led to the appointment of the Committee to whose Report they had just listened, which had been the cause that had first awakened the attention of the country to this important subject. In 1848 the Government made some improvements in these departments, but no step had been taken which could be considered to indicate a real inclination on the part of the Government to grapple with the question of administrative reform, until, under the Government of Lord Aberdeen, the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir S. Northcote) and Sir C. Trevelyan were appointed to inquire into the state of the civil service, the results of which inquiry had already been laid before the House. The administrative system of this country had since then been put to the greatest of tests—namely, that of war, and the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Committee proved in what manner that system had endured that test. The evils which had befallen the army during the last winter had been described in strong language by the Ministers themselves, and he (Viscount Goderich) would not revert to them further than to say that the Government must not have recourse to small and insignificant measures if they intended to prevent the recurrence of those evils. He was led to make these observations on the origin of the great, and, he might say novel, interest which was now felt in this country on the question of administrative reform by the remarks which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the conclusion of his speech on Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman, after detailing the various measures which had been taken for the improvement of the various branches of the civil service, dilated on the two which had been adopted by the present Government, and concluded by saying— I will only remark that this Order in Council provides a great additional security for merit in administrative appointments beyond that which now exists. A regular examination, conducted under the superintendence of a board of persons who are independent of each department and unconnected with the heads of those departments, affords a greater security than has ever hitherto existed for the exclusion of unfit persons from the service of the Crown. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to ulterior measures which it may be thought prudent or wise to adopt, surely it cannot be denied that the provisions of the Order which has recently been brought into force for the first time afford a guarantee for the merit of persons appointed in the different public departments, inasmuch, as by prescribing a certain amount of qualification they will prevent any one from entering the service of the Crown who does not possess that requisite degree of attainments. I cannot but think that the Order in Council to which I have referred gives a practical proof of the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government for securing the efficiency of administrative departments, and goes much further in that direction than any of the very general recommendations which are offered at meetings out of doors. I will not trouble the House any further upon the subject. I will only state my conviction that, so far as any measures for the advancement of the cause of adminstrative reform are concerned, the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government go as far as it is in the power of any one to embody practically the suggestions which have been made. With respect to ulterior measures, I may add that they remain open for further consideration; and that their adoption can only take place after careful and anxious consideration." [3 Hansard, cxxxviii. 2132. He (Viscount Goderich) thought he was entitled to conclude, after such an expression of opinion on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government considered there were scarcely any further measures required for the improvement of our administrative system, and he begged hon. Gentlemen to reflect on this before they gave their votes on the present occasion, for as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, he thought the House might form a pretty correct opinion of the amount of benefit which they might expect from the adoption of that Amendment. The two measures which had been introduced by the present Government for the reform of the administrative system were, first, that which had for its purpose the consolidation of the Ordnance with the other war departments; and the second, the issue of the Order in Council dated the 22nd of May. The first of these measures was, no doubt, a great improvement, and would tend to remedy several of the evils which had been complained of; but it did not deal, nor—judging from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was there any intention on the part of the Government to deal with an important branch of the subject, namely, that of promotion in the army. If the Government did not—and it would be difficult to do so—give a sufficient answer to the statements on this subject made by his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) he (Viscount Goderich) thought they must bear the blame of permitting a system to continue which was fraught with injustice and with manifold evils. They had heard nothing from the Government as to their intention with respect to the proposition made by Lord Grey in the other House, that all the military departments should be consolidated under one head. It had been objected to this, that it would be dangerous to intrust the patronage of the army to a political Minister of the Crown; but was it not more dangerous to intrust such patronage to the Commander in Chief, who practically was responsible to no one for the appointments which he made, and who certainly did not act under the same sense of Ministerial responsibility as the Members of Her Majesty's Government? With reference to the Order in Council issued on the 22nd of May, it was not necessary for him to say much after the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, which proved how much that Order was worth, and he (Viscount Goderich) fully agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that if the persons who were to go before the examiners were to be selected by the Government and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), this measure would be nugatory, and the examiners would not be able to withstand the appeals which might be made on behalf of each individual candidate. It appeared to him that the only means by which the examination could be rendered effectual for the purpose for which it was instituted would be to allow all persons to offer themselves as candidates irrespective of Government recommendation, and that after having been examined, they should be placed in classes, from which the Government should be obliged to make their choice of persons for appointments in the civil service. A curious passage occurred in Taylor's Statesman, a work written long before the time of Sir Stafford Northcote or Sir Charles Trevelyan, on this question of admission to the civil service. It was to the effect that probation alone, without examination, was not to be relied on, and that greater security was obtained against undue indulgence on the part of the examining authority when there was more than one candidate for a post, because an examiner would shrink from an indulgence the result of which would be an injustice to two or more individuals, but might not shrink from it if it only caused an injury to the public service. He admitted that the plan now adopted by the Government was an improvement, but he hoped it was not to be final, as he wished to see the abolition of the nomination system. He would suggest that it would be a great advantage to the public service and a great check upon the exercise of patronage if each year a return of every appointment made in the civil service were laid upon the table of the House, and that reasons were assigned for all staff appointments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was tantamount to a vote of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. There were, no doubt, many hon. Gentlemen who would not be inclined to agree to such a vote, although they might otherwise concur in his hon. Friend's Motion; but he denied that his hon. Friend had brought forward the Motion as a direct vote of want of confidence. His hon. Friend did not intend to charge the present Government with being the sole cause of the evils which had produced that state of the nation which the Motion described the House as viewing with concern; and many of the facts and statements he had laid before the House could not with justice be applied to the present Government, but ought to be laid to the charge of previous administrations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had characterised the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire as vague. But if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Lytton) was vague, the speech by which he supported it was vaguer still. In one part of it he referred to the language used out of doors on the subject of party influences on the administration of affairs, and said that party influences were the sinews of freedom. Now, he (Viscount Goderich) could not believe that it was for the advantage of free institutions to sacrifice to party either great principles or public interests. There was certainly no party now in that House for which it would be worth while to make such a sacrifice. Were there no differences upon the opposite benches? Was there a united party on that side of the House? The great parties which in former times contended for power no longer existed, and the House was divided into a number of disunited sections. He need say little as to the injury to the public service caused by the present system of Government after the speeches they had heard on Friday; but it appeared that the best managed of all the departments was the one under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, and the right hon. Member for Oxford University had pronounced a warm eulogium on Mr. John Wood, who presided over that Board. What was Mr. Wood's opinion of the present system of patronage and appointment to the public service? Mr. Wood said:— Let any one who has had experience reflect on the operation of patronage on electors, Parliament, and the Government. Over each it exercises an evil influence. In the electors, it interferes with the honest exercise of the franchise; in Parliament it encourages subservience to the Administration; it impedes the free action of a Government desirous of pursuing an honest and economical course, and it occasions the employment of persons without regard to their peculiar fitness. It is a more pernicious system than the mere giving of money to electors or Members of Parliament to secure their votes. It is bribery in its worst form. That was a system which it could not be for the honour of that House to maintain. The hon. Member for Dudley, in his speech of Friday evening, had alluded to what he called the "Goderich pledge," and he might therefore be allowed to explain the reasons which had induced him to make the statement referred to. He had long felt that it was very unjust for people out of doors and for Members of that House to blame the Government for continuing a system which they themselves, by their own acts, helped to keep up. If the House of Commons really desired to put an end to the present system, and to deprive the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells of his patronage, they must begin by doing their own part in the matter, otherwise they would never convince the Government that they were really in earnest or force it into a course which would be more conducive to the interests of the public service. On the other hand, he was bound to say, that persons in the country who were desirous of entering the public service were not always to be blamed for making applications to Members of Parliament, because at present it was the only way in which such employments could be obtained. He believed, however, that if a better system were adopted, if admission by competitive examinations, for instance, were the rule, there would be a general disposition among the best of the candidates for the public service to enter it in that manner, rather than, as at present, by Parliamentary influence. An incident which had happened within his personal experience, strengthened him in that opinion. In the year 1853, he had received a letter from a gentleman—not a constituent of his—requesting him to make application on his behalf for a situation in the Customs. After some hesitation, knowing that there was no other way by which such an appointment could be obtained, and feeling certain that the gentleman in question, from his education and antecedents, was fully competent to discharge the duties of the office he sought, he promised to mention his name to the Secretary of the Treasury, declining, however, to make any direct application for him. Soon after this the first intimation was given, in Her Majesty's Speech at the commencement of the Sesssion of 1854, of the intention of Lord Aberdeen's Government to make an alteration in the system of admission to the civil service by instituting public examinations; and this gentleman wrote to him immediately, begging that no application might be made to the Treasury on his behalf, as he should infinitely prefer to enter the service by means of a fair and honourable competition. He must say, therefore, that the allusion to party influence in the Motion of his hon. Friend was, in his opinion, fully justified. But another expression in that Resolution—the words "family influence" had been very much criticised in the course of the debate, and the-right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had endeavoured to combat the accusation embodied in that part of the Resolution by pointing out that in the Cabinet which had been the first to propose to relinquish all its patronage and open the civil service to all competitors he had been the only Commoner. The right hon. Gentleman's argument, however, cut both ways, for people out of doors might retort that he, the only Commoner in the Cabinet, was the ablest Member of it; and it could not fail to be remarked that this aristocratic Cabinet was turned out of office by a large majority of the House of Commons because it was thought that they had mismanaged the affairs of the country. He certainly thought that the system which confined the highest offices in the Government to one class was not a just one, and not only did he object to it on public grounds, but because it was likely in the long run to be injurious to the very class to which he belonged—the aristocracy. The people of this country were becoming more and more inclined every day to say, "The aristocracy have had the monopoly of employment, things have gone wrong under their rule, we will hold them responsible;" and he was afraid the time might come when they would say, "As the aristocracy have had hitherto too large a share of the administration of public affairs; for the future we will exclude them altogether." So many unfit Lords had been appointed to public offices that the people were beginning to think that all Lords were unfit, and the mere circumstance that the man appointed to a public office was a Lord, would be sufficient to raise an objection to him, whether he was competent for the office or not. Now, a system which created such a feeling as that inflicted great injustice upon the class whom it was supposed to benefit, and since the aristocracy ought to have nothing to fear in putting themselves in competition with all other classes of the community, he believed his hon. Friend was right in saying that family influence, when used as it had been, was alike as detrimental to the higher classes as to the public service. There was one point upon which little had been said, but which was yet of great importance. He referred to the extreme reluctance which Governments and Ministers seemed to feel against removing unfit persons from the public service. He (Viscount Gooderich) entertained very strong opinions as to the duty and necessity of removing unfit persons from office. He believed it to be nothing less than a crime for any Government or any Minister to retain any man in a post connected with the public service for which he had been clearly proved to be unfit. He wished, on this part of the subject, to read two extracts from the Blue-book on the reorganisation of the civil service. The first was the opinion of Sir James Stephen— My own experience teaches me that a Secretary of State who should promote any one of his clerks over the heads of his seniors, must arm himself with the fortitude of a martyr. The inflictions he would have to undergo from the tongues or the pens of the kinsmen and kinswomen, of the patrons and the patronesses, of the private and the political connections of the many he had passed over, would leave him no rest day or night. And why is he to incur and brave all this animosity? Just in order that he may hand over his office to his future successor (some political antagonist) in the highest attainable state of perfection. I have no faith in the frequency of such martyrdoms. He hoped, for the sake of the character of English statesmen, that the latter part of this extract was not true. The other extract was from the pen of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir George Lewis, after quoting the opinion of Sir J. Stephen, said— It may be added, that where the head of any department makes the experiment of incurring the resentment of powerful persons in order to promote deserving subordinates, he will probably not be supported by public opinion. The disposition of the public is to regard an office as a life estate, and to sympathise with the holder of it, not only when he is passed over for want of merit, but when he is dismissed for positive misconduct. No doubt, a Minister who was determined to do his duty in this matter would be very much attacked, and, if a combination of the friends of disappointed persons were formed against him, it might be too strong for him; but no Minister could propose to himself a more noble task; and if he were removed from office, not because he mismanaged public affairs, but because he endeavoured to reform the public service of his country, posterity would do him justice, although his contemporaries might not. The House must be prepared to support any Government that entered upon this course, and to oppose any Government that deviated from it. The hon. Baronet (Sir B. Lytton) had complained of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) because he talked of gradual reform; but it appeared to him that the hon. Baronet did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman, for the first step of the course advocated by the latter was the final step proposed by the hon. Baronet. Parliament must show an inclination to advance step by step in remedying the evils that existed and in preventing the recurrence of those from which we had lately suffered. The House had been engaged for many years in reforming itself, and in amending the commercial policy of the country, but had not had its attention directly turned to administrative questions. This must now be done at once. All would have to make sacrifices of one kind or another, and hon. Members would be called upon to sacrifice their personal, class, and party interests. The hon. Baronet (Sir B. Lytton) saw some danger to free institutions from the cry for administrative reform. There might be danger to free institutions unless they performed the task set before them, of proving that free institutions and good administration were not compatible. If Parliament did not apply itself to the duty before it, and if recent events were re-enacted, then there might indeed be a cry that good administration was better than free institutions. God forbid that such a cry should ever be heard! But if Parliament neglected its duty, there might be fatal truth in the words of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, and great disasters—not in this campaign, perhaps, or in this war—might threaten us unless we were determined to do that which it was our duty to do for the interests of freedom in this country and throughout Europe, to strive by every means in our power, regardless of personal or of party feelings, to show to the world that free institutions and good administration could exist and flourish together.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that after the noble Lord's allusion to the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, which, he said, had received no reply, he must not be surprised if, passing by the somewhat vague speech just delivered, and which left him in great doubt as to the practical object that the noble Lord aimed at, and the manner in which he proposed to effect the regeneration of the public service; he stated that his object in rising was to endeavour to reply to that portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury in which he criticised the existing state of the administration of the army, and in which he described, most erroneously, the principles of favouritism and family connection, and the system of suppression and absolute negation of merit, under which, according to the hon. Member, the patronage of the army was now dispensed. The hon. Member distinctly stated that there was much that was corrupt in the system; that the men who worked hard and had rendered good service to the country were allowed to remain unrewarded and unnoticed, while those who had done nothing at all, and who, having the opportunity, would be wanting in the capacity of doing something, were taken by the hand by the authorities at the Horse Guards and raised to the higher offices of the profession. If the hon. Gentleman had contented himself with general statements of this description, he (Mr. Peel) should have felt perfectly warranted in at once meeting them by as general a contradiction; but the hon. Gentleman attempted to substantiate his general assertions by citing particular cases, observing that he was aware he exposed himself, in taking that course, to the imputation of descending to vulgar personalities. The hon. Member ran no danger of the sort, for the citation of particular cases was a more useful course than general declamation; but the danger to which the hon. Member exposed himself was this, that, as soon as he entered into details he afforded an opportunity for testing the correctness of his details. Having had an opportunity of examining these matters, he (Mr. Peel) should be sorry for the present discussion to be brought to a close without an endeavour to remove the most erroneous and delusive impression which would get abroad if it were supposed that the speech of the hon. Member admitted of no contradiction. He would give an illustration of what he considered the heedlessness with which the hon. Member made charges, going from one case to another, and "taking suggestions as a cat laps milk." The hon. Member represented that the regimental officers were placed in the shade, and that for the staff officers and cocked hats were reserved all honour and distinction. Referring to the rewards conferred since the commencement of the war on regimental and staff officers who had distinguished themselves in the Crimea, the hon. Member said that the number of officers rewarded was ninety, and that out of that number only thirty were regimental officers. That statement was not only not true, but was precisely the reverse of the truth; for, instead of the staff officers, rewarded for distinguished services in the Crimea, being twice as numerous as the regimental officers, they were only one-half of the number of the latter. The hon. Member referred to a Parliamentary return, but he might have; been shy of doing so after the statement he made on a previous occasion. He (Mr. Peel) held in his hand the Parliamentary return to which the hon. Member referred. It was presented on the 13th of March, and, according to that return, sixty staff; officers and thirty regimental officers were rewarded. [Mr. LAYARD: Hear!] The hon. Member cheered; but it was not sufficient to refer to a return made three months ago, and it was for the purpose of obviating misconception that, when that return was presented, a note, of which the hon. Member must have had perfect cognisance, was appended to it, stating that; "a further list of the names of majors and captains of regiments engaged in action, or who have distinguished themselves in the trenches, is daily expected to be received by the General Commanding in Chief from the Commander of the Forces in the Crimea." Now, if the hon. Member were anxious not to mislead the country on this subject, he would, seeing that the return was presented so long back, and that another list of regimental officers about to be promoted was expected, have inquired whether that additional list had been received. In fact, in about a month after the presentation of that return, the hon. Member, who said he studied the. Army Gazette, would find in the London Gazette, of the 24th of April, a list of regimental officers promoted for service in the Crimea, captains being appointed majors, and majors being appointed lieutenant-colonels, which list entirely redressed the apparent inequality of the first return, and made the regimental officers rewarded twice as numerous as the staff officers, and four times as numerous as the hon. Member represented them to be. The exact number of staff officers rewarded for their conduct in the East was sixty-four, and of regimental officers 135. The hon. Gentleman commented on the word "connection," which formed one of the heads of information to be communicated by candidates for admission to the army, and he was incapable of understanding for what object this word could have been introduced, unless it was to intimate that none need apply at the Horse Guards for a commission who bad not high family connections. To that criticism he would make a very short answer. It was well known that the army was officered by gentlemen. It was the study of the Commander in Chief—and we had seen within the last few days what a painful exercise of authority he was compelled to resort to in the discharge of his important duty—he referred to the case at Canterbury—to maintain among the officers of the army a tone of gentlemanly feeling, not inferior to that which prevailed in the best society. It was right, therefore, that the person charged with the admission of officers to the army should know who and what they were, and be informed as to their family and connections. If the hon. Gentleman thought that the connection of any individual with the middle class of society would prevent his being admitted, he was very much mistaken. If it were necessary he could cite hundreds of instances to the contrary, for, in truth, all that was required of candidates was, that they should have the education and the feelings and habits of gentlemen. Passing from that part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to notice the case of Colonel Wilson. He said it was harsh that Colonel Wilson should have been required to purchase his commission under a regulation of which he had no knowledge, and he spoke of that officer as entitled to the sympathy of the House. Now, with regard to the first of these points, he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considered it right that Colonel Wilson should purchase his own commission, or that he should have had it purchased for him by the relatives of a deceased officer? It came precisely to that. Either the relatives of Colonel Mackinnon would have had to expend the money of that deceased officer for the purpose of giving Colonel Wilson his commission, or Colonel Wilson must pay the money himself. Then as to the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for Colonel Wilson, while he (Mr. Peel) had not the slightest wish to say one word against that officer, he must ask the House to remember that Colonel Wilson paid down his money in the purchase of a commission in consequence of the two officers above him having withdrawn their names for purchase—hoping to win their way by promotion—and that he did so in order that he might step over the heads of those two officers. In consequence of casualties in the field, however, vacancies were created by which those officers obtained their promotion. With regard to regimental appointments, the hon. Gentleman told the House that, while officers without interest were passed over without any notice, officers with interest were unduly advanced; and, to illustrate his position, he named five officers, four of whom were related to Lord Hardinge, the Commander in Chief—Colonel Hardinge, his son; Major Hardinge, his nephew; Colonel Wood, related to him by marriage, and Colonel Cunynghame, his son-in-law. With reference to Colonel A. Hardinge, the hon. Gentleman stated that that officer was placed on the staff in violation of an established regulation; and he observed, that regulations could be infringed when they operated prejudicially to one class of officers, while they were rigidly enforced against others. He said the regulation was, that no subaltern could be appointed an aid-de-camp within two years of joining his regiment, the object being to give him time to become acquainted with his regimental duties. That was a regulation enforced at home, but abroad it was dispensed with, as in the case of the Governor General of India's staff, and in the case of the personal staff of a general officer, when the army was on service in the field. He might cite, as an instance, the case of the Duke of Richmond, who was placed on the staff of the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula, before he had been two years with his regiment. The regiment in which Colonel A. Hardinge was, proceeded to India, and there he was placed on the staff in the way he had mentioned. When the Sutlej war broke out in India he was appointed aid-de-camp to his father, who acted as second in command, under Lord Gough, and in consequence of this Colonel Hardinge had the advantage of being at the battles of Sobraon and Ferozeshah, where his regiment did not arrive in time. In consequence of his distinguished conduct in that campaign, he was allowed to become a lieutenant by purchase by Lord Gough, and there never was a lieutenancy better deserved. Afterwards he was allowed to purchase a company in another regiment. With regard to that purchase he should explain that it was the recognised practice to allow the commander in chief in India, when he resigned his command, to recommend an officer for promotion. Lord Hardinge was not commander in chief, but had been second in command in the Sutlej, and the Duke of Wellington gave him that privilege under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he having been at the same time Governor General and second in command. That was the way in which Colonel Hardinge got his company by purchase. He afterwards purchased into the Guards, and the rest of his career was well known from what had recently passed in the Crimea. He could not see, therefore, in what way the case of Colonel Hardinge supported the view of the hon. Gentleman that there had been extraordinary favouritism shown in his advancement. The next case was that of Major Hardinge. That officer had purchased all his steps up to that of senior captain in the Rifle Brigade; and the other day, when an additional battalion was raised, he, as a matter of course, succeeded to the new majority. [Mr. LAYARD said, his observations had applied to his position on the staff.] He would now direct the attention of the House to the next case of the hon. Gentleman, which was that Colonel Wood had been placed over the head of Colonel Brough. Colonel Wood was in the campaign in India, and was appointed assistant quartermaster general at the Horse Guards; the deputy quartermaster generalship became vacant in Dublin, and, according to the course of proceeding, for which precedents could be stated, he succeeded to that office. The two spheres of deputy adjutant general at Dublin and assistant adjutant general at Belfast were quite distinct, and one could not be said to be higher than the other. Then, with regard to the case of Colonel Cunynghame, that officer had, since the commencement of the war, been acting as assistant adjutant of the first division of the army, was present in all the battles, and never was absent a day from his post. The office of quarter master general to the Turkish Contingent had to be filled up, and Colonel Cunynghame was selected for that appointment and received a step of local rank. The hon. Member appeared to consider it a grievance that Colonel Cunynghame should obtain the step of major general upon being appointed to the Turkish Contingent, but, in every instance, with or without inflence, officers appointed to foreign levies received a step of local rank. The hon. Gentleman complained of Colonel Cunynghame being made major general, although he had been twenty-five years in the army, and somewhat later in his speech, the hon. Gentleman inconsistently quoted from the Report of the Commission last year the ages of major generals in the last war. He said— The Duke of Wellington was a major general at thirty-three; the Marquess of Anglesey, thirty-four; the Earl of Dalhousie, thirty-eight; the Earl of Strafford, thirty-six; Lord Hill, thirty-three; Lord Beresford, thirty-nine; Sir George Murray, forty; Lord Combermere, thirty-one; Lord Londonderry, thirty-two. And he asked why the recommendations of that Commission were not acted upon. The Commission advised that young major generals should be appointed. Those he quoted could not have seen more than fifteen years' service. The appointment of Colonel Cunynghame as major general was an act of anticipation upon the axiom of the hon. Gentleman, detur digniori. Because Colonel Cunynghame was an experienced officer, and young enough to discharge the duties efficiently, he was created major general, and the hon. Gentleman showed little confidence in his own doctrines, for when they were acted upon he said it was for the purpose of favouring some particular officer. He had now gone through the case of Lord Hardinge's four relatives. In quoting the fifth instance of favouritism the hon. Member said— I will now refer to a case of a very opposite description. It is that of an officer, a young man (Captain S——) whose name has never been mentioned in any despatch, and whose services are wholly unnoted. There was some inconvenience in giving even the initial letter of the names of officers, if it were intended to conceal them. It was well known this officer was Major Selsby Smith, but, so far from his services being wholly unnoted, he had gone through the campaign on the Sutlej. He would explain to the House why it was that Major S. Smith was elected to be deputy quartermaster at the Cape. Colonel Cloete had held the office, and, when he returned to this country, the senior captain of his regiment, who had been made major for his services, Major S. Smith, was appointed acting deputy quartermaster general during his absence on leave. Soon afterwards General Cathcart returned from the Cape and was succeeded by General Jackson. General Jackson, anticipating Colonel Cloete would resign, and that war was likely again to break out at the Cape, wrote to Lord Hardinge, earnestly requesting that he might be permitted to continue Major S. Smith permanently in the appointment of deputy quartermaster general. It was not an appointment which in all probability Lord Hardinge would have made himself, and yielding to the recommendation of the officer who was responsible for the tranquillity of the Cape Colony, a recommendation pressed solely on the ground of the public interest—Lord Hardinge acquiesced, and Colonel Selsby Smith was appointed deputy quartermaster general. He was the officer most conversant with the way in which it would be necessary to move troops to the frontier, and, performing also the functions of adjutant, he was responsible for the training and discipline of those colonial levies, which, if war had broken out, must necessarily have been raised. The appointment of deputy quartermaster general carried with it the brevet rank of lieutenant colonel. The hon. Member misstated the effect of these promotions. Referring to Colonel Smith attaining the rank of brevet major before he was appointed deputy quartermaster general; he said the first step placed him over the head of the senior major of his own regiment, while the second step of lieutenant colonel placed him over the head of Lieutenant Colonel B., who was lieutenant colonel of the same regiment. He need hardly explain to the House that the brevet rank this officer had attained did not alter his relation to the regimental officers of his regiment. When he returned to his regiment he would stand in precisely the same relation to the major and the lieutenant colonel as at the time he was appointed to the Staff as deputy quartermaster general. If these five cases were the worst illustrations which the hon. Member could produce, after all his researches, of the evils of the present system, he could confidently predict that under any system established in its stead there would arise cases of hardship to individuals infinitely worse than any of these cases—if, indeed, there was anything improper in any one of them. He had disposed of the first of the two classes, and would proceed to the other, which was composed of officers who were said to be pining under neglect. The first instance quoted was that of Lieutenant Buck, who was in the same regiment which Colonel Arthur Hardinge joined as ensign; and the point of the hon. Member was that, while Arthur Hardinge had become lieutenant colonel, poor Lieutenant Buck remained a lieutenant. Lieutenant Buck, it was true, was still a lieutenant. He entered the army, not simultaneously with, but subsequently to Colonel Hardinge. He would explain why Lieutenant Buck was still a lieutenant. He was one who had suffered by the system of purchase. [Mr. LAYARD:"Hear, hear !"] He had probably no means of advancing himself save by seniority, and thus had crept slowly through the grade of lieutenant. [Mr. LAYABD: "Hear, hear!"] But he was now senior lieutenant of his regiment, and the only reason he was not promoted to his company was because his regiment was not sent yet to the Crimea. His regiment consisted of twelve companies. The regiments sent to the seat of war were placed upon the war establishment of sixteen companies. Should his regiment be sent to the seat of war, it would be increased, and Lieutenant Buck would obtain his company as a matter of course without purchase, the same as Major Hardinge obtained the newly created majority upon his regiment being increased. The next case to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the case of Lieutenant Edwardes. He said that Lieutenant Edwardes was an officer who had served in the Peninsular war, that he had been engaged in several actions for which clasps and medals were conferred, and that after some forty years he still remained a lieutenant. But what was the case of Lieutenant Edwardes, which was to establish the charge of oppression? At the conclusion of the last war, Lieutenant Edwardes, like many other officers, was reduced to half-pay. He was made half-pay in 1818, and with the exception of about seven years, when he was brought on full pay and afterwards exchanged again to half-pay, he had been on half-pay from that time to this. Lieutenant Edwardes was now adjutant of the recruiting district of Liverpool, and the complaint of the hon. Gentleman seemed to be that Lord Hardinge would not appoint him to the captaincy of an unattched company without purchase. There was really no indisposition on the part of the Horse Guards to appoint Lieutenat Edwardes to the captaincy of an unattached company, whenever such companies fell vacant; for, he believed, three must fall vacant before the appointment could be made. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had ascertained from Lieutenant Edwardes that he would prefer an unattached company to his present position, but he apprehended it would not be to the interest of Lieutenant Edwardes, as it would involve the resignation of the adjutancy of the recruiting district. The third case to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that of Captain Carruthers. The complaint in his case was that he had been refused a majority which he had asked for. The authenticity of the very touching letter which was read by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in reference to that officer's case was not, of course, open to question, but he (Mr. Peel) was certainly a little surprised at it, for he could not say that any injustice had been done to Captain Carruthers. That officer was reduced to half-pay in 1818, and, with the exception of five years, he had remained on half-pay from that time to this. In 1842 he was appointed brigade major at Cape Town, an office which had hitherto been held by an officer of the rank of captain. He (Mr. Peel) admitted that when the Caffre war broke out the duties of Captain Carruthers were largely increased. At the termination of that war application was made to Lord Hardinge to confer the distinction of major in the army on him; but Lord Hardinge considered—and, in his (Mr. Peel's) opinion, properly considered—that, however useful and serviceable were the functions which had been performed by that officer, inasmuch as he was 600 miles from the seat of war, it was an honour that ought not to be conferred. He (Mr. Peel) did not think that it was an incorrect view of the mode in which patronage should be dispensed, when Lord Hardinge said that, on those officers who had been personally engaged against the enemy, risking their lives in an inglorious war, such a distinction ought to be conferred rather than on an officer at a remote distance, however well he might have performed his duties in another sphere. Then, what was the case of Lieutenant D.? This was the initial letter given by the hon. Member, but he would ask that hon. Gentleman to give him the name of that officer? [Mr. LAYARD: Daniell.] He (Mr. Peel) would not have felt justified in referring to a memorandum of Lord Hardinge if the hon. Gentleman had not stated the name. The House would recollect that the statement of the hon. Gentleman against the Horse Guards was that he had not been given an unattached company without purchase. He was stated to be the oldest subaltern in the army, and that he had applied to be appointed to an unattached company—but no, he had no friend at the Horse Guards, and therefore he was still a subaltern. The hon. Gentleman should now himself judge whether there was any just cause of complaint in withholding that appointment— Lieutenant Daniell, of the 75th, was an applicant for an unattached company without purchase, and, from his length of service, would have had a fair claim to obtain one; but when his case came under consideration in October last, attention was attracted to the fact, that he had exchanged from the 94th Regiment, then in India, but about to return home, and where he was the fourth lieutenant, into the 75th Regiment, on the 7th of April, 1854, and that this could hardly have been done for the object of remaining with the 75th Regiment in India, as he had returned to England. It was thought, therefore, necessary, before promoting him, to ask for some explanation with respect to the exchange, when Lieutenant Daniell admitted to the military secretary that he had received a sum of money on effecting it. It was, of course, impossible to promote an officer who had just made a profitable arrangement with regard to his commission, and it was to this cause that his not obtaining an unattached company at that time was attributable. The rule with regard to the promotion to unattached companies without purchase was generally to be guided by the length of service of the candidates, and there were now lieutenants on the list of longer standing than Lieutenant Daniell, who had lately preferred their applications. He had now mentioned every case which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in regard to promotion, and he appealed to the House whether they thought he had succeeded in proving the case he had endeavoured to establish—that undue favour had been shown by the Horse Guards to particular individuals? The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to consider the staff appointments; and the first remark he made upon that subject was, that the certificates of the College of Sandhurst were disregarded. He said that only seven officers in the Crimea had received certificates of merit from that college. Now he (Mr. Peel) would tell the hon. Gentleman his opinion with regard to those certificates. He did not consider that a pass certificate of Sandhurst College ought to be received as an indispensable qualification to an appointment on the staff. No doubt scientific knowledge would be of great assistance to an officer on the staff; but his opinion was that men possessed of the highest scientific and mathematical knowledge, without at the same time possessing practical regimental knowledge, would be perfectly children in military operations, and that it would be of great disservice to the State if they were to decide that an officer who did not possess a certificate from Sandhurst should not be appointed. The hon. Gentleman had laid down the maxim—that the right man should be appointed to the right place. Now, he wished to deal plainly with the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. He (Mr. Peel) admitted that a man might be an excellent staff officer who had not a certificate from Sandhurst; but he had been asked whether it was not a Fact that on his own application, a relative of his had been appointed to the staff, such relative never having obtained a certificate from Sandhurst College? That man might, no doubt, be a very goon staff officer without having obtained a certificate, and it was, of course, very proper that a man should exert himself for his own relative; but he did object that the hon. Gentleman should turn round upon the Government and make it a matter of reproach against them for having done that which he himself had been instrumental in doing. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the case of Colonel Yea and others, and said how hard it was to pass over those colonels of regiments who had gone through the campaign of the Crimea and had acted for years in the service, and that the Horse Guards should have appointed to brigades in Malta two colonels who had not seen service in this war at all. The hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between the brigadierships conferred at Malta and the acting brigadierships held in the Crimea; but the rank of brigadier-general being only temporary, one brigadiership was just as good as another, and there was no difference in the nature of the brigadierships held by the two officers to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred and that held by Colonel Garrett in the Crimea. Now, did the hon. Member think that if, instead of sending out Colonels Williams and Rumley from this country, the appointment of brigadiers at Malta had been offered to Colonels Garrett and Yea, these officers would have left the Crimea, where the path of honour was open to them, to accept such a position as Malta? An army of reserve, numbering from 5,000 to 10,000 men was in course of formation at Malta, and it was necessary to place in command of such troops officers who were peculiarly conversant with the mode of rendering young recruits serviceable soldiers. Colonel Williams had been selected for this duty as one of the oldest colonels in the army; and Colonel Rumley, because he had for some time commanded the Provisional Battalion at Parkhurst, and had shown his ability in the discharge of such duties as he would be required to perform as brigadier at Malta. The hon. Gentleman next referred to the manner in which rewards had been conferred upon officers in the Crimea. Now, such rewards were of two kinds—those which were conferred by the general commanding in chief, and those which it was the especial prerogative of the Crown to bestow. Every one must lament that such officers as Colonel Egerton, who had displayed so much valour on all occasions, should fall in battle before they could receive the honours they had so richly earned; but it must be remembered that if such honours as the decorations of the Bath were conferred for every battle, the power of bestowing them would soon be exhausted. The general commanding in chief had conferred such rewards as were at his disposal upon those officers whose conduct had been most distinguished. The rewards the general commanding in chief could confer upon officers of high rank were colonelcies of regiments, and since the commencement of the war four colonelcies had been given to young major generals—Sir Colin Campbell, Sir R. England, General Bentinck, and General Pennefather—solely on account of their conduct in the campaign. As a better proof of the manner in which the general commanding in chief administered the patronage he possessed, he (Mr. Peel) might inform the House how Lord Hardinge had filled up the commissions issued in consequence of the augmentation of the regiments of Foot Guards. Last year additional companies were added to each battalion of the Guards, and one-half of the new commissions were given to officers of the line who had distinguished themselves in the service. He found that ten officers had been appointed to the Guards from regiments of the line in consequence of distinguished service, including Captain Butler, who successfully defended Silistria, and who subsequently died of his wounds; Lieutenant Rowland Hill Gordon, who was appointed to the Guards solely in consequence of his having been mentioned in Lord Raglan's public despatches for having gallantly resisted the enemy's attack in the trenches; Major Montgomery, Captain Wetherall, and other officers, all of whom had seen service in India, at the Cape, or in the Crimea. The hon. Member for Aylesbury proposed to reform the present vicious system by abolishing the plan of promotion by purchase, but the hon. Gentleman admitted that the evils of that system were not of such magnitude as to justify the country in incurring the expense of compensating officers who would be injuriously affected by the abolition of the system. The hon. Gentleman found, however, that out of about 4,500 commissions some 2,500 had been conferred without purchase, and he proposed that in future no officer who had received a commission without purchase should be allowed to sell his commission. He (Mr. Peel) had given careful attention to the subject, but he did not see how the hon. Gentleman's proposal could be carried out without seriously affecting vested interests. If they told a lieutenant colonel, who after purchasing an ensigncy had obtained his subsequent steps without purchase, that he was not to be allowed, on leaving the army, to receive more than he had given for the commission of ensign, he would naturally say, "I imagined after twenty or thirty years' service, although I received my commission without purchase, that on retiring from the army I should be allowed to realise its full value." Indeed, he (Mr. Peel) did not see how officers in such a position could be deprived of the right of realising the pecuniary value of their commissions without a serious disturbance of vested interests. The hon. Gentleman had further suggested that no officer should in future be appointed to the staff who had not gone through a prescribed course of education. He (Mr. Peel) did not deny that there was value in that suggestion; but, as a Committee of that House, presided over by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, was now engaged in considering whether the Royal Military College at Sandhurst could be so enlarged as to afford the means of educating officers for the staff, he thought he might pass by this point. The next proposal of the hon. Gentleman was to abolish the privileges of the Guards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford complained of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire, because, while urging upon the Government the importance of reforming the civil service of the country, it too no notice whatever of the exertions which had been made to effect that object during past years. But if his right hon. Friend considered that that was a well-founded complaint against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, how much better a complaint had he (Mr. Peel)? In recommending the abolition of the privileges of the Guards, the hon. Member entire overlooked the fact that, during the last ten months, a blow had been inflicted upon the privileges of the Guards, which was severe as could be received at one sing stroke. Until the passing of the warrant of October, 1854, there was no difficult in getting a lieutenant colonel of the line to exchange with a captain and lieutenant colonel of the Guards. An entire change, however, was effected by the warrant of 1854, because that warrant required that no lieutenant colonel should succeed to the full rank of colonel until he had served three years in the command of a battalion, and he need not say that a captain in the Guards, though a lieutenant colonel, did not command a battalion. It was said that the Government had paid no attention to the recommendations of their Commissioners. Now, the Commission of 1854 recommended the employment of younger men as general officers. The hon. Member for Aylesbury read a list of general officers employed in the Crimea whose ages were chiefly over sixty, but the hon. Gentleman might also have read the list of major generals, when it would have been seen that the recommendations of the Commissioners, instead of having been disregarded, had been scrupulously attended to, no doubt to the annoyance and disapprobation of several general officers. When the army was sent to the Crimea no major general was appointed commander of a brigade, but the command of each brigade of cavalry, and of the first, second, third, and fourth divisions, of infantry, was conferred upon a colonel. With the exception of Lord Rokeby and Major General Barnard, since that Report had been made, no major general had been appointed to the command of a brigade in the Crimea. He had now nothing further to say with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but, with regard to the Resolution submitted to the House, he thought it came too late, and that it altogether exaggerated the state of feeling which prevailed throughout the country. In the first place, it spoke of disasters, but he (Mr. Peel) did not think that this country had met with any disaster in the true sense of the term. Any disaster that could befall a nation like England must be one that would lower her in her own estimation and in the estimation of the world, and he did not believe that this country stood now one jot lower than she did eighteen months ago. To show that this was really so, he need only refer to the state of feeling in the Colonies. Throughout our colonial Empire a wish had been expressed to draw closer the bonds of union between the Colonies and the mother country, and he believed that that desire had arisen in consequence of the manly courage and chivalrous fortitude that had been displayed by our troops, and, also, because the colonies felt the justice of our cause. That there had been great calamities sustained in the war and great sufferings endured, no one could deny; but he rejoiced to think that, at all events, they had now passed away, and that at present the army in the Crimea was more numerous, and better appointed in every respect than any that had ever been brought together under the command of a single English general. Whatever might have been the case hitherto, at the present moment that army was in the highest state of efficiency and order with regard to its food, its means of transport, its stores, and the state of its hospitals. The hon. Member for Aylesbury endeavoured by his Resolution to attribute any disaster that might have occurred to the public appointments that had been made, but he (Mr. Peel) did not understand that the Report which had been read that night designated any individuals as being themselves the causes of any disasters that might have taken place. At all events, it was considered that, to a great extent, the system was responsible for what had happened. Although he could not agree in the Resolution of the hon. Member, or in the words in which it was framed, yet he was as favourable as any member of the Reform Association to the principle of obtaining properly qualified men for the public service. He acknowledged that great mischief and even ruin might follow from unwise and imprudent counsels in the management of public affairs, and, knowing that this country teemed on every side with ability, he agreed in the desire that was felt at all times to place the Government of the country in the hands of the most steady and experienced persons.

MR. DRUMMOND

Sir, the noble Lord (Viscount Goderich) has dwelt upon the inefficiency of the present Ministry; but that is not the matter now under discussion: the meetings which have been held, the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, and the whole argument of the noble Lord deny the sufficiency of any person on either side of the House who has ever been employed in the administration of public affairs. The noble Lord is evidently looking forward to the establishment of an Utopia, for he has declared that what he desires can only be attained by a total sacrifice of selfish or party wishes or consideration; the sacrifice of every individual, of every party, and of every class, both within and without the walls of Parliament. At the elections, after the repeal of the corn laws, the universal cry throughout the country was, that we had now got rid of class interests; that, henceforward, all laws would be equal for all classes, and none would have any preference over another; yet the very persons who arrogate to themselves exclusively the name of Liberals, are now agitating in every corner to get up a cry to exalt the middle classes and to lower the upper classes. They began with a clamour against the aristocracy, but they seem now to be conscious that they were talking nonsense, for that, in this country, it is impossible to define what is meant by the term; so now they have shifted their ground, and raise a cry for what they call administrative reform—a term as senseless as the other. The hon. Member for Aylesbury piqued himself, the other night, upon being the only man in this House who dare stand up and speak the truth, and defined what he meant by speaking the truth, which was the abuse of the Government. So far, however, from this requiring any courage, it is the meanest and lowest road to fame; and if he wants to show courage in these days against real danger he had better stand up against the civium ardor pravajubentium, and not against those from whom there is no cause of fear. The most judicious writer in the English language has said— He that goeth about to persuade a multitude that they are not so well governed as they ought to be, shall never want attentive and favourable hearers; because they know the manifold defects whereunto every kind of regiment is subject; but the secret lets and difficulties, which in public proceedings are innumerable and inevitable, they have not ordinarily the judgment to consider. Under the pretext of administrative reform these people are attacking every kind of rule and order. But "order is heaven's first law," and not to be violated without paramount necessity. Their arguments are equally valid against the planetary system, and, according to them, it is a mere piece of red-tapism that the sun does not come down out of his place, and warm us in this cold summer, and ripen our corn. The Motion of the hon. Member contains certain assertions, not one of which is true, and not one of which has he attempted to prove.

Taking all these assertions for granted, however, and that the whole body of statesmen who have held office on either side of the House are incompetent, a body of persons have come forward and volunteered to govern us for the future. Let us, therefore, examine a few of the most prominent of these Gentlemen. Mr. Wyndham, in his speech against volunteers during the last war, said that volunteers were like soldiers, but were not soldiers; just as a picture was like a man, but was not a man; and so I suspect we shall find these volunteer statesmen; however like statesmen they may be, yet, after all, they are no more real statesmen than pictures are real men. One of the principal of these volunteers is the hon. Member for Tynemouth, and he comes forward to drive out all the upper classes as bad administrators, and to put in himself as a good one. I find, however, in the records of the police office, that about two years ago that Gentleman was, to use a Bow Street expression, "had up" for not fulfilling a contract he entered into to convey some poor emigrants, in the ship Swarthmore, to Australia. Now, I do not mean in the least to insinuate that the hon. Member acted in the smallest degree dishonestly by them, nor cruelly, nor unkindly; but the better his intentions were, the more honest his intentions, and the more kind, the more did he show himself a most incompetent administrator, even in matters of his own business and of daily occurrence. This, however, is not all: it appears from a correspondence, which was published also in the newspapers, that the same hon. Member for Tynemouth entered into a contract with a shipbuilder to build him a ship, which he named by the euphonious appellation of William Schaw Lindsay; he, however, subsequently spoilt it by additions which he made to it, and then abused the builders for building a bad ship; the builders replied that they had adhered to their contract, but that Mr. Lindsay, being a ship-broker, and not a ship-builder, had interfered in a business which he did not understand, and had, therefore spoiled a good ship which they had delivered into his hands. Here, then, is another proof that this Gentleman meddles with matters which he does not understand, and is a very bad administrator.

Another of these volunteer statesmen is the hon. Member for Pontefract. This Gentleman has avowed himself by many Motions made in this House, extremely concerned in the sale, and, perhaps, in the manufacture, of wine. Any gentleman so employed might find sufficient on his hand in reforming the wine trade, without extending his exertions over other matter I suppose all Members have read the Re- port and evidence on the state of the wine trade, which was presented by a Committee of this House a few years ago; hut lest they should not, I beg to remind them of a remarkable fact which came out in evidence, and which was this. The King, George IV., asked one day at dinner for a particularly fine kind of wine, for which he had not called for a very long period; liking the wine, he desired the same to be served at another dinner His Majesty was about to give a few days afterwards. The butler, next day, ran in dismay to a wine merchant in the City, stating that he had drunk all the wine himself, and concluding that when they found out what had occurred, His Majesty would dismiss him and ruin him. The wine merchant told him to be under no alarm, to send him a bottle as a sample, and he undertook to send a mixture so exactly resembling it, that the King should not discover the fraud. This was done; the King praised the fabricated wine, and the butler saved his place. The fraud in wine is so extensive, that there are many fewer pipes of port wine imported into England now than there were in 1812, although the population has been greatly increased between those periods. That same Report also stated the great extent of plantations of elder made in Portugal by the English wine manufacturers there, to say nothing of jeripiga, sloe berries, &c. Dr. Hassall has also just published an account of all the analyses made by the Commission, which Mr. Wakley organised, for the examination of various articles used as human food, and the German papers, in reviewing this work, have said that as Napoleon called the English a nation of shopkeepers, now they must be called a nation of the greatest rogues in Europe.

These volunteer middle-class statesmen, stated moreover, in their meeting at the London Tavern, that the hon. Member for Aylesbury was "hounded down," (as they called it) for only expressing an opinion contrary to the opinions of the majority of this House. This assertion is entirely false; and I am an impartial witness in the matter, for I not only took no part in the discussion, but I agreed in much that that hon. Member said. I regretted that he made several misstatements, and it was natural that the friends of the officers referred to should be indignant; but I was sorry to see a gentleman, who possesses great energy and singleness of purpose, get into any difficulty. When I see a person attacked by a majority, I instinctively take the side of the weaker party, and I do not think that we have too many men of his intelligence in the House to enable us to afford to lose any one. The thing, however, of which they falsely accused the House of Commons of having done, they did actually themselves; for when a poor Mr. Walker got up only to state his opinion, they positively silenced and refused to hear him.

But let us take another example of the capacity of the middle classes to govern us, and let us try them by their acts. They clamoured for what they call local self-government, and they got it: and the consequence is, that Newcastle-on-Tyne has been victimised by cholera, lately, more than it ever was before. Newcastle has at its head philosophers, scientific men, merchants, shipbuilders, &c., the very elect of the middle classes; they are all reformers, liberals, and intelligent, and yet they have not sufficient administrative talent to clean and drain their own town: they have quarrelled together for ten years, and done nothing: yet, of all places, it is one of the least difficult to cleanse, for it stands on the side of a river with high banks, and nothing could be wanted but to cut ditches from the top to the bottom of a rapid descent. Croydon is another place in which the middle classes boast that they are competent to self-government, and the end of their administrative faculties was, that they produced a virulent fever which destroyed hundreds of human lives, owing to their bungling and incompetence. As to London, we know what a mess that is in, and has been ever since the shopkeepers had the management of their lighting, and drainage, and supply of water. It has been in such a state of confusion and mismanagement, owing to nothing whatever but the incompetence of the shopkeepers to manage such affairs, that at length the Government has been urged to take the matter into its hands, and a Government officer has been appointed, and the right hon. Baronet has introduced his Bill accordingly.

But look at a greater case than either Newcastle or London; look at India, a place wholly governed by merchants, and see whether their civil departments are better managed than they are in this country. The Commissariat is decidedly worse; the accounts more in arrear, although there is no titled First Lord of the Treasury over it. As to injustice with respect to promotions in their army owing to redtapism, I know an instance of an officer who has been employed in every branch of the service, and received approbation for his conduct in each; he has also served with distinction in the field under fire; he has been declared by the Duke of Wellington, by Lord Raglan, by Lord Hardinge, by Lord Gough, by Lord Broughton, to be deserving of his promotion; but this has been refused him, owing to some form not having been gone through; the Court throwing the blame on Lord Dalhousie, and he is now about to return to India with all his juniors promoted over him: a grosser act of cruelty, injustice, and wrong, was never heard of; and this by a government administered by merchants.

See again the case of railroads, which are all projected and carried on by the middle classes: look at the immense amount of capital which has been expended, and the average return upon it is said to be under 2 per cent. When the proprietors get into such difficulties that they cannot extricate themselves, they are frequently obliged to have recourse to some noblemen or gentlemen to relieve them. In one case they appointed the Marquess of Chandos, in another General Anson, in another Mr. Francis Scott, and they turn-this last gentleman out of the South Western, because, being a gentleman, he was determined to stand by the engagements which the company of middle classes had entered into, and which engagements these middle classes repudiated, when they found it to their pecuniary interest to do so.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury said, that in all literary and scientific societies which he frequented, he found everybody agreeing with him in his opinion of administrative reform. I think this is very probable, for of all classes of human society, literary and scientific men are the least competent to manage men and things belonging to this sublunary world. All statesmen agree in this opinion; and Napoleon, who was truly a statesman, writes to his brother Joseph, "mistrust all literary and scientific men; treat them like coquettes; amuse yourself with them; but do not try to make wives of one, nor statesmen of the other." Swift, another true statesman, had an equal contempt for literary and scientific men, as statesmen, and he refers to a species of them which is perfectly applicable to our present subject. In his imaginary travels, he says— In the school of political projectors I was but ill entertained, the professors appearing in my judgment wholly out of their senses, which is a scene that never fails to make me melancholy. These unhappy people were proposing schemes or persuading monarchs to choose favourites upon the score of their wisdom, capacity, and virtue; of teaching Ministers to consult the public good; of rewarding merit, great abilities, and eminent services; of choosing for employments persons qualified to exercise them, with many other wild and impossible chimeras that never before entered into the heart of man to conceive, and confirmed in me the old observation that there is nothing so extravagant and irrational, which some philosophers hare not maintained for truth. The noble Lord the Member for Huddersfield said, that constitutional government was now on its trial, and that it was on the verge of being brought into contempt. In my opinion, Sir, constitutional government has been tried, has run to seed, and is now worn out. Its natural tendency was towards republicanism, and the Whigs lave fanned this tendency, and have now accomplished by law that substitution of the power of this House for that of the Crown, which they effected by blood in Former times. This House has thrust itself into the Executive, instead of confining itself to purely legislative functions. Committees on things may be useful; but Committees sitting on the conduct of individuals will prove as tyrannical as they ever have proved, as bad as the Star Chamber itself. The hon. Member for Aylesbury thinks that the army will thank him for the exertions which he supposes to be in its favour; but he will only effect distrust and discord between superior and junior authorities: the army on the whole will feel itself insulted by his interference, and will sooner or later revenge itself by again putting us out of this building, and by taking the administration of all affairs into its own hands; but whether this is the administrative reform after which he is longing, I leave it to him to determine.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, he thought the House had lost sight of the true course of proceeding, for not with standing all the complaints which had been made of the faults of the system, he believed that if they had the proper men a the head of each department, everything would go on well. A similar state of things to the present existed from 1744 to 1750, when the King was compelled to send for Mr. Pitt, whom he mortally hated, and that great statesman soon change everything; and what was now wanted was a Minister who would "bell the cat" in a similar manner. He (Mr. Macgre- gor) would take upon himself to tell the bold truth—when Mr. Pitt held the seals of office he would not permit any of the offices of State to be filled by any but efficient men; and what was now wanted was a Prime Minister who would have the courage to act upon the same principle. He had the highest esteem for the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, and thought him a man of great administrative ability; but he believed that circumstances had prevented him from filling up the offices in his Government according to his own natural sagacity. He felt similar confidence in the Secretaries of State for the Colonies and for Foreign Affairs. Then there was their Indian Empire, with its 150,000,000 of inhabitants, including only 15,000 British residents, exclusive of the army. Looking to the financial, military and social position of that great Indian Empire, it was the duty of the First Minister to get the very best men to place at the head of the Board of Control; and he would say, without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) that the country was astounded when they found who was appointed. He regarded the position of our Indian Empire with alarm. He must say, however, that his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), for the short time he was at the Board of Control, ruled India with great sagacity and ability, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman would also fill the place he had now got with ability, for when he was Secretary to the Admiralty he took great pains to acquaint himself with the business of that department. The right hon. Gentleman was not very popular in the House or the country—but the truth was, he was too honest to truckle and give very polite answers. Then with regard to the Board of Trade. The President and Vice-President should be well acquainted with the commerce of our own country and the commercial affairs of all other countries, as well as those of India and our Colonies, and should also be fully capable of managing that important branch of their department, the railway department. He thought, too, that the Board of Inland Revenue and the Customs, under their present heads, were in a state of efficiency. In all the departments he believed the underlings would efficiently perform their duties if they were placed under proper chiefs; but in the present Government he considered that, with the exception of the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretaries of State, all the higher offices had been filled without due care and without due regard to public opinion. In all other European States he found that ability for office was considered before office was conferred; and indeed there was no country with which he was acquainted in which, in appointing to office, so little regard was paid to fitness as in England. He denied that there was any feeling in the country against the aristocracy, but he would not deny that there was dissatisfaction at the preference which appeared to have been shown to the claims of consanguinity in the formation of the Ministry, nor that there was an opinion abroad that the noble Lord had been obliged to yield to superior influence in filling up the great offices of State.

COLONEL LINDSAY

said, he did not rise so much for the purpose of addressing himself to the question before the House as with a view to notice two cases to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury had referred in his speech on Friday last. The first of these cases was Lord Eustace Cecil. It would perhaps be in the recollection of the House that a few weeks ago he (Colonel Lindsay) had made some remarks upon that case, after it had been brought under their consideration by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury. He was not aware at that time that the hon. Gentleman was about to allude to that subject, and he took the precaution of informing the House that he was not speaking from any personal knowledge, but from information communicated to him by other parties. He had since found that there was an inaccuracy in the statement he then addressed to the House; but it was not an inaccuracy of any magnitude; and if it had been, he should have taken an earlier opportunity of publicly correcting it. He said that Lord Eustace Cecil had exchanged into the forty-third; but upon that point he had been misinformed; and he had since learned that Lord Eustace Cecil had not exchanged, but had sought and obtained a commission in that regiment. The hon. Gentleman told them, on Friday last, that the promotion of Lord Eustace Cecil was in direct opposition to all the regulations of the service; but upon that point the hon. Gentleman was in error, for there was nothing in the regulations prohibiting the promotion of the noble Lord, who had been two years in the position of a subaltern. The hon. Gentleman had further stated that he (Colonel Lindsay) had excused that promotion; but he begged leave to observe, that upon that subject also the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, as he (Colonel Lindsay) had merely stated what he had believed to be the facts of the case, and he had not attempted to offer any defence in that House of the conduct of his commanding officer. Indeed, he conceived that it was in no way a part of his duty to submit to the House any such defence. The hon. Gentleman had further said, "Lord Eustace Cecil had exchanged from every regiment which was seeing service. His regiment is at the seat of war; he is placed in a battalion which is at this moment in Dublin, and Lord Eustace Cecil is within a mile of this House, or was so within a very few days." Now he (Colonel Lindsay) would state what were the facts of that case. An officer on joining a regiment was immediately sent to the depôt, where he had to learn his duty, and until he had learnt it he was not allowed to go with his regiment. When Lord Eustace Cecil's time to leave the depôt came he embarked for the Cape. The Kaffir war was at that time going on; but when he arrived at his destination that war was over. The regiment next went out to India; while in India he sought an exchange into another regiment, and his father, knowing his wishes with respect to service, got him a commission in the eighty-eighth, which embarked for the seat of war, in April. Lord Eustace returned from India on leave, having a severe liver complaint, and never joined the depôt of the eighty-eighth; and he subsequently obtained his promotion into the Coldstream Guards. That was, he believed, the promotion of which the hon. Gentleman complained; and upon that subject he (Colonel Lindsay) would simply state the facts as they had occurred, without pretending to submit them to the House either in the way of justification or of excuse. The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Eustace Cecil had changed from every regiment that was seeing service; but the fact was that at the time he left the forty-third it was not seeing service, and that at the time he got into the eighty-eighth it was seeing service. He afterwards got into the Coldstream Guards, one battalion of which was seeing service; but he had not left England, and he was still in England for reasons which he (Colonel Lindsay) would proceed shortly to state. When he got into the Coldstream he was told he was to proceed to the East forthwith, and his preparations were in progress accordingly. About that time Lord Rokeby was placed in command of the brigade. The regiment had then ten lieutenants and captains at the seat of war and only three at home. A young officer named Wellesley was selected as aid-decamp by Lord Rokeby; and immediately after the order in reference to Lord Eustace Cecil was countermanded, and he was obliged to remain at home. But it might be asked why he had not gone out since? the reply to which was that a number of officers were brought from the line into the Coldstream, who, being already at the seat of war, were ordered to join the battalion there, so that the noble and gallant Lord had now to wait for his turn. The hon. Member (Mr. Layard) had also referred to the case of Captain Blackett, who, he said, had received his promotion through the influence of Colonel Upton, with whom he had gone on a pleasure excursion. Now what were the facts of that case? Colonel Upton was sent out in command of detachments from several regiments, one detachment of which—that from the ninety-third regiment—was commanded by Captain Blackett. The men were all young, raw, and unformed; and in the course of the voyage Colonel Upton observed that Captain Blackett showed a great deal of merit and tact in the performance of his duty. Colonel Upton, on finding that the Coldstream had no officer to promote, wrote home to his brother to procure Captain Blackett a commission, and accordingly a commission in the Coldstream was presented. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had spoken of a breach of the rules of the service; and no doubt these rules were made to be observed; but it should, on the other hand be remembered that the rule fixing two years' service before appointment to the rank of captain had been made before the war, and was principally intended for times of peace; and everybody must know that five or six months of actual hostilities gave an officer more knowledge and experience of his profession than he could gain in even four or five years of peace. Great injustice had been done to an officer of the name of Amherst who had been severely wounded at the battle of In-kerman, and who had the misfortune of being an "honourable," and in consequence of the debates in that House he would have to serve the usual two years, and ten to twelve men placed above him for promotion, notwithstanding the gallant manner in which he had performed his duty. In his opinion that was not altogether fair or just. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) that a heavy blow had been struck at the brigade of Guards; and very great injustice had been done in consequence. The consequence was that an officer of the Guards, except in time of war, would have no chance whatever with the rest of the service. If ever there was a case in which a body of men was thoroughly "done," that body was the Guards. Thanking the House for having heard him so attentively, he should conclude by expressing his opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he rejoiced that this question had been taken from the political atmosphere in which it was originally enveloped, and brought before that House in a tangible shape, in which it could be deliberately and satisfactorily discussed. He concurred in many of the observations which the hon. Member for Aylesbury had made with regard to the army. He (Mr. Phillimore) thought that the exclusive privileges conferred on the Guards were inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. The complaint against those privileges was as old as the period of Junius, and no doubt the privileges enjoyed by the household troops were borrowed from the practice of continental countries. It appeared to him (Mr. Phillimore) that of all the absurdities that it ever entered into the mind of man to conceive, one of the greatest was that of establishing a system of competition by examination for appointments to the public offices. He did not object to an ordinary examination, suited to the duties which the candidates for employment had to perform; but such a system of examination as that mentioned in the Blue-book which had been referred to on the subject, deserved strong condemnation. He was astonished at the proposition of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir S. Northcote) that they ought to have two sets of clerks—one for the intellectual work, and the other for that which was merely mechanical. Such a proposal was worthy of the author of the Report, than which a more thoroughly pompous and pedantic production, or one betraying more consummate and stupid ignorance of human nature, was not to be found even among the Blue-books, or among the works of the school of which the hon. Baronet was so striking and exact a specimen. With respect to the system of examination for employment in, the public service, he therefore disagreed with the hon. Member for Aylesbury, as what he proposed he (Mr. Phillimore) thought was neither definite nor useful. He (Mr. Phillimore) thought also that, far from the present state of the country being a subject for alarm, it was one for satisfaction and encouragement. The hon. Member had proposed as a remedy for the alarming state of the country that clerks in the Colonial and Foreign Office should pass an examination previously to being admitted to that office. But the hon. Member had himself stated that he was surprised and amazed at the amount of knowledge which he had discovered in the clerks on a visit to the Foreign Office, and yet these very clerks had undergone no examination. He (Mr. Layard) therefore had disproved his own case. He (Mr. Phillimore) thought that the only principle by which a country like ours could be well governed was, by a party Government; and that it was just as absurd to attempt to charge the evils that had befallen the country, from the misconduct of subordinate officers, on the aristocracy as a class, as it would be to charge the middle classes with the bank-ruptics and failures which had happened in the country during the last few years. Although he did not mean to impute improper motives to those who were raising the present agitation, yet it appeared to him that, arguing from the abuse of an institution against its existence was as gross a fallacy as could be employed to impose upon reasonable men. He would conclude by saying that those who raised class against class in this country would give birth to such a state of feeling as would go on increasing, and which would arrive at such a head that all the wisdom of Parliament would be insufficient to subdue it; and he therefore trusted that, whatever measure the Government might adopt on the present occasion, they would rest it on those great and solid principles which had for so long tended to the welfare of this country.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I should not have deemed it necessary to say a word in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, had it not been for some remarks made in the course of the debate, and especially one by my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey, who with that Rabelaisian humour which is peculiar to him, sneered at the term of administrative reform, and said that he could not annex any meaning to it, and doubted whether those who made use of it were more competent to give a definition of the term. Now, Sir, as I think I am the individual who first used that expression in this House, I do not consider it would become me to shrink from assuring the hon. Member that I think that expression is capable of definition—that I annex to it a precise meaning in my own mind, and that it expresses a principle which, if acted upon, would, I think, be most beneficial to the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer dilated very much on the improvements which have for some years been made in the public service, and he did me the honour of acknowledging that during the period Lord Derby's Government were in office, they were not remiss in their exertions to obtain that improvement in the public service which the right hon. Gentleman admitted had been effected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was also pleased, in a manner still more ample and liberal, to acknowledge that, during the time of the administration of Lord Derby, steady and rapid progress—I think those were the words he used—was made by their efforts to render the public service more efficient. I may be permitted to tell the Member for Surrey that measures which render the public service more efficient are measures of administrative reform. The right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for the University of Oxford stated, that as early as 1848, measures had been taken to revise the constitution of several public offices, and among others, those of the Treasury and of two of the Secretaries of State, and that when we were responsible for the conduct of affairs, we lost no time in revising several branches of the public service, particularly those connected with the administration of Ireland, following, as they would wish the House to infer, the precedent which had been set before us. But I would take the liberty of stating, that the course which we adopted in issuing Commissions to examine into several departments was not influenced by those precedents, however respectable they might be, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The fact is, that previous to our accession to office a very significant event had occurred which exerted much more influence on our Government, and which must have exerted much more influence on the conduct of any Government, of whatever party it consisted, or of whatever materials it was formed, than could have been exercised by any isolated precedent which might have been bund on the table of the House for the examination, revision, or reconstruction of any department of the State. Before we had arrived at office, the extraordinary scandal respecting the administration of the Customs had taken place; a Committee had been appointed, which had conducted with great ability an elaborate inquiry on this subject, and had presented to the House a Report, with which, no doubt, many Gentlemen are familiar. It was this which caused to devolve upon us, at least the prospect of having to deal with this important subject, and which induced us to consider what measure could best be applied, in a remedial sense, to such a state of things, and which, had our Government continued, would have been almost the first we should have submitted to the House. It was while examining into the administration of this, one of the most important branches of the public service, that our attention was attracted, and our consideration given to, the general administration and management of the various public offices of the State. After giving the subject the consideration which it demanded, it was impossible to resist the conclusion that the public offices of this country required considerable change, that they had not made an advance proportionate with that of the various matters with which they are connected, and that they were not so efficient as a country like England had a right to expect. We had, then, to consider the position not only of the Customs, but also of all the public departments; and it was after consideration, I hope not shallow but comprehensive, of a question so vast that we arrived at the conclusion that the changes associated with what is now popularly understood as administrative reform (an expression which I used in this House nearly three years ago, for the first time, to describe the meaning of the then Government), were imperatively required, and that no Government could continue without making them. There was another cause, I admit, which induced us to come to that conclusion—we were of opinion that the financial system of the country required revision, and that the principles of taxation which then obtained demanded considerable alteration to render them more just; and, of course, in order to effect the changes we contemplated, it was our interest to have as large a surplus as possible at our command. We were therefore, of course, anxious to increase the surplus revenue of the country by effecting practical and judicious economies in the public service. Although this was one of the prime motives that induced us to consider the changes to which I have referred, I am bound to state that we had not long investigated the question before we became persuaded that efficiency was the true parent of economy, and that by obtaining what was efficient we should be the more sure to obtain that reduction of expenditure, that economical result, which we desired to secure. It was with these feelings that I, as the organ of the Government, applied to my noble Friend the Member for Buckingham (the Marquis of Chandos), then a Lord of the Treasury, to undertake that revision of the Irish Departments which has been several times referred to in the course of the debate. The then Government decided on that revision as an experiment to try whether the result of rendering this branch of administration as efficient as possible would be economy or the reverse. My noble Friend undertook the operation with no limit as to expenditure, and with only one instruction, which was to render the Irish service as efficient as he possibly could. It was with that view that my noble Friend, with the present Accountant-General of the Navy, undertook the revision of the Chief Secretary's Office in Ireland, the Privy Council Office in Ireland, and the Irish Office in this country; and the consequence of the reforms he effected was, to place those offices in a most efficient state, and, at the same time, to make a reduction of expenditure to the amount of 25 per cent. After this experiment, and after due consideration, the Government of Lord Derby had resolved to bring under the consideration of the House, as soon as it was in their power to do so, the whole question of administrative reform. Of course, on the present occasion I shall be most careful not to speak of the mere intentions of that Government, which some may regard as afterthoughts; and, therefore, I am not now pretending to express all that was intended, but still scrupulously confine myself to those measures of which I, as the organ of the Government, had given notice in this House. And, first, I gave notice the moment certain actual measures which we had brought forward had been disposed of—if they had been disposed of in our favour—to bring under the consideration of the House the whole question of administrative reform, with the view of rendering the public administration of the country more efficient, and the service of every department more consistent with the requirements of the age. I should then have stated what we intended to do. I, as the organ of the Government, should have expressed our general views as to the principal alterations which we thought ought to be made in the civil service, and I should have informed the House that we had recommended Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the conduct of all the departments of the State, with the view of drawing from their report the regulations necessary to effect the reforms we had in view, which would then have been sanctioned and enforced by an Act of Parliament. And it certainly appears to me, after listening to all the improvements and alterations which have been counselled and suggested on all sides, that that course ought to have preceded all the recommendations that have been made; because what we want at present is, to learn from authority how the public service can be carried on in the most efficient manner, without reference to any theory or any existing circumstances, and to have placed before us from the labours of a Royal Commission, composed of the highest practical authorities, results which may guide us in coming to a conclusion upon that question. I think I have now shown the hon. Member for West Surrey that there is something definite to be associated with the phrase "administrative reform." I should indeed have had the honour, if I had remained in office, of bringing forward two measures of administrative reform, one of them being, of course, a measure for the better administration of the Customs, the introduction of which was necessarily the first duty of the Government which succeeded us. The hon. Member for West Surrey will not pretend for a moment that the measure introduced on that subject by the succeeding Government was not a large measure of administrative reform. Many Gentlemen may have suggested a different form of measure, some may have supposed that other remedies might have been devised more efficient than those recommended by the Government; but no impartial person can deny that the measure was a large and efficient measure of administrative reform. Another measure of administrative reform has been passed, to which I think I may say the country is indebted to the Government of Lord Derby, although we had not the honour of passing it—I mean the measure which caused the gross revenue of the country to be paid into the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Williams) will remember that I gave notice of my intention to introduce it, and that the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded me carried it, with our assistance, through the House. That was a measure of administrative reform; because I deny that you could have had without it a complete system of public accounts, and it had long been recommended by the highest practical authorities in order to secure that, without which, all administrative reform is illusory—a complete balance-sheet of the receipt and expenditure of the country. I think I have now shown the hon. Member for West Surrey that the phrase he treated with such agreeable levity is one which, although I may associate with it other ideas than those I have heard expressed in some quarters during the debate, was, at least as far as I and those who act with me are concerned, associated with practical measures of great advantage to the public; and I believe the principle of those measures ought to be developed in much greater magnitude than we have hitherto been promised that it shall be.

A great deal has been said as to the changes which ought to be introduced into the civil service. I should be very sorry if I were induced for a moment to defer to a public cry which I did not think was to be justified, or if I could under such circumstances be induced to express any opinion on the subject which I was not prepared to express, nearly three years ago, when I was in a much more responsible position. I scrupulously refrain, therefore, from expressing on this subject other opinions—if I entertain them—than those which I was then prepared to propose for the adoption of the House. I am of opinion—and all that has since passed has necessarily confirmed my opinion—that great changes are necessary in the civil administration of the country, and that those changes would be attended with great advantage to the public. I am also of opinion, in the first place, that entrance into the civil service should not be obtained by mere favouritism, but should be made subject to a substantial and real test of fitness—and I think that the idea of a substantial and real test of fitness is not illusory, but essentially practicable. In the second place, I think that the rewards of our public civil servants should be on a higher scale; and I am convinced that the result of such, a change would be public economy, and not increased expenditure. I think the rewards of our public servants in these departments should not be merely of a pecuniary nature, but that they should be educated to look up to those more spiritual rewards which animate and ennoble the conduct of man. I am also of opinion that the civil service of this country ought to be, and must be made, strictly and completely a profession, and that the great permanent offices in it should be reserved for those who have been trained and educated in the permanent civil service. These, I believe, would be sound and judicious changes; they are administrative reforms, and they are changes which every Minister ought to adopt and carry out, and with nothing short of which this House ought to be satisfied. They are changes which I advocate not in deference to any popular clamour, but which I was prepared to advocate long ago, when there was not sufficient clamour in this House to support me in recommending them to your adoption; they are changes, moreover, which would result in the great improvement of the public service, a great advantage to the country, and a prevention of much of that maladministration the evil consequences of which we have recently had so much cause to deplore. But, Sir, I would still impress upon the House that though by these changes you would elevate the tone of the public service, and secure for it a higher degree of talent, although you may reward in a becoming manner that high degree of talent, although the general result of those changes will be satisfactory, salutary, and successful, still the step which ought to precede all these changes is to obtain from the highest authority a clear and distinct idea of the most efficient manner in which the public service in all its departments can be carried on; and when you have obtained that, you ought to devise the means by which that idea can be carried into effect. Sir, I know no means by which this could better be done than by mean of a Royal Commission, consisting of practical men—of men who have filled the highest posts in the civil service, and who have shown the greatest amount of administrative talent, mixed, however, as even such Commission should be, with a certain portion of the political experience a statesmanlike knowledge which is to found in the House of Commons. If the Royal Commission which we meditated has been appointed, and if it had been form of the individuals whose names we she have recommended to Her Majesty, I am persuaded that the public offices of this kingdom would have been in a very different state to that in which they are now.

These being my views—views upon which I and my colleagues were prepared to act—I am called on to-night to consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Now, Sir, that Motion, as I read it, is one which is far from embodying that policy which I would recommend the House to adopt, and which very indifferently meets the wants which I have indicated to the House this evening. It calls upon us to assent to assertions to which I cannot with sincerity give my assent. It tells us that the misfortunes which we all deplore are to be attributed "to the manner in which merit and efficiency have been sacrificed in public appointments to party and family influence and to a blind adherence to routine." Now, Sir, I think I have sufficiently shown that I am no blind adherent to the routine of our public offices. I think I am conscious of their deficiencies, and I feel I am prepared to remedy them if opportunity offers by measures equal to the occasion; but I cannot agree that our late disasters have been occasioned by a "blind adherence to routine in the public service," or to a want of merit and efficiency in the officers. It is more than possible—I think it is very possible—that the public services might be rendered more efficient, and that much of the routine which at present exists might be modified or altered, but I should be expressing that which I do not believe if I were to attribute to routine and to the deficiencies of clerks disasters which I think were caused by an incapable Ministry—by a Ministry which the House of Commons, by an overwhelming majority, only a few months ago, declared to be incapable, a verdict which has been completely confirmed by the mature investigations of a Select Committee, and which a Report, such as was never before read aloud in this House, has repeated in the most emphatic manner. It would he miserable hypocrisy, it would be trifling in the last degree, after a declaration, pronounced by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, repeated by its Committee, and confirmed by the unanimous voice of the country, that these disasters were caused by the incapacity of the Government, to pretend now to attribute them to a few inadequate clerks and to the routine of our public offices. No, Sir: I believe, with the House of Commons, the Select Committee, and the nation, that these disasters are to be attributed to the existence in this country of a Cabinet formed of men who, though possessed of the highest abilities and great political experience, were not bound together by that public sympathy and private regard which are essential to render any Cabinet a successful Administration. Therefore, Sir, irrespective of all other considerations, I think it most unwise, by consenting to this Motion, to take away, as it were, from the Government that responsibility with which they have been fixed, and which they must bear, and thus to provide a conductor to avert from their heads the public indignation which has been so justly raised against them. This being the case, I have now to consider the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. This Resolution, in my mind, embodies most accurately what the House ought to feel on the subject. It does not come forward to tell us in exaggerated language that the misgovernment and misconduct which have so saddened the spirit of the country are to be attributed to the system of administration which has so long prevailed, and under which, with all its shortcomings, we have accomplished so many successes and achieved so great glory. It does not come forward with assertions which cannot be proved, but which this House, in deference to a popular clamour, is asked heedlessly and thoughtlessly to consent to; but it does express in language which I believe is definite, precise, and capable of proof, and which, I think, will be sanctioned by the mature approbation of public opinion, that which is the real state of affairs and that which in the calm and thoughtful view of the country is actually required at this crisis. It calls for a careful revision of the various establishments of the country, and it tells us the object which that careful revision ought to attain; namely, to simplify and facilitate the transaction of public business. That is precise, and that is administrative reform. Let me remind the hon. Member for West Surrey that it tells us to institute a judicious test of merit—that we ought to remove obstructions to fair promotion and legitimate rewards. The recommendations contained in this Resolution are such as receive my entire adhesion; they express precisely the policy which the Government of Lord Derby was prepared to recommend. If they are adopted—and I am told that they will receive the concurrence of the Government—I hope it will not be as a mere machine to avert from them the injurious consequences which might result from carrying the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, but that the Government will adopt them in the spirit of sincerity and truth, as the imperative recommendation of the House of Commons, and will be prepared to act upon them to the full extent of their meaning. Well, Sir, if the Government mean to act in that way, I say they ought to take the same efficient steps that we were prepared to take to solve the question how the public business and the business of the Government can be carried on in the most efficient manner. They ought to institute a Royal Commission to report to Parliament; they ought from that report to draw out regulations for the conduct of the public offices; and they ought to call upon the House of Commons to sanction those regulations by Act of Parliament, so as to secure every public office from the caprice and wilfulness of any political chiefs who may be placed at its head. It is possible to go further, but I am not prepared to go further when we have done so little. Let us carry out that which I have sketched, and rely upon it, many advantages will accrue to the country, and will be obtained in a manner consistent with the utmost respect for all existing institutions, and that need not alarm the most timid of those who desire improvement. I do not pretend or believe that by any fanciful machinery we can destroy the evil consequences of favouritism or the exercise of patronage. I think that when we come to place against the evils that may result from patronage ill exercised the countervailing advantages of power exercised by those who are responsible to the representatives of a free people, we shall find the countervailing advantages so preponderant that I would not risk those advantages for what may be but a fanciful and Utopian result. If you secure, as I believe you may secure, that the entrance into the civil service of this country shall be an object of ambition, not to the least competent, but to the most competent members of a family—if you make the qualification for the civil service to consist in the fitness of the applicant from the possession of the moral and intellectual qualities that are requisite—if you do this, and if you add to this the security to the successful aspirant of an honourable and sufficiently remunerative professional career, you may rely upon it that, in the main, those who enter the civil service of this country will be equal to the occasion and to the opportunity. Entering by merit they must rise by merit; but the judges of that merit must be found in the higher walks of the service, in the Ministers of the Crown, and must not be left to a fanciful system of competitions utterly foreign to the manners, the genius, and the fortunes of this country. When, Sir, I hear of appointments being made independent of the Ministers of the Crown, I ask what is the meaning of a Minister of the Crown if it is not to appoint the most fitting men to public appointments? We are told that Mr. Pitt once said to some one, whose name is unknown, that in the course of his long political career he had never been able to put the right man into the right place. I doubt this anecdote. We heard the other day, too, that a deceased Prime Minister, whom we all re-recollect, was afraid to open his letters lest he should hear of the death of a bishop. That, I believe, has been mentioned as an instance of a pure and patriotic spirit shrinking from the exercise of patronage. I look upon it as the trait of an indolent and epicurean mind. Why, Sir, what is the first qualification of a Prime Minister? It is not administrative talent, for he must look for that to others. It is perception of character and knowledge of man; and it is the duty, and the highest duty, of a Prime Minister to take care to appoint pious bishops and wise judges, and to appoint to the discharge of the highest functions of the State the most eminent and best qualified persons. I say that these are the most important offices that a Prime Minister can exercise, and they form one of the principal reasons why a Prime Minister exists. I say that you may render, as you ought to render, the entrance into the civil service of the country a step only practicable to those who are really competent to enter it, and that you may have, as you ought to have, in my opinion, a complete and efficient test of fitness from a properly qualified and independent board of examiners; that you ought to render the civil service a complete profession, and to offer to it not only those rewards which are offered in all other professions, but those rewards, of another and a higher character, which induce men to exert themselves, and reward them for such exertions; that you ought, above all, to take care that the great places in the civil service are secured to those who have been trained in it. But with these conditions, I say you must leave the exercise of the patronage, as it is called—that is, the choice of the fitting instruments or the selection of the right men—you must leave it, I say, to the men in eminent positions, who only occupy those positions for the purpose of selecting the most fitting persons, and of taking care that the best qualified should be secured to the service of the State.

Sir, I have ventured to-night, in no spirit of boastfulness, to state what we proposed to do in 1852, and to vindicate the course that would have been taken by us. I do not grudge that it may fall to others to accomplish all that we desired, and to fulfil more than we were able to accomplish; but I think we have a right to expect some assurance and security from the Government that we shall at least obtain as much, and that, if they do shield themselves from the injurious and inconvenient consequences of a Motion for administrative reform by adopting the wise and judicious Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, they will be prepared to act upon that recommendation, and not treat it as a convenient mode of saving them from being in a minority. That Motion recommends to the House of Commons definite and precise subjects of the highest importance, and the House ought to feel that that recommendation will bear speedy fruit for the acceptance of the country. I am bound to express my opinion that, so far as I can form an opinion from the conduct of the Government, my expectations are not of a very sanguine character. I do not see, in the manner in which the Government have conducted themselves with regard to this question, nor have I seen this Session, any evidence that they are prepared to act in the spirit of the policy which they announced they were about to undertake, and which the Amendment they are about to adopt recommends them immediately and amply to follow. We have had one Motion, hurriedly and hastily brought before us, with regard to the consolidation of military offices. I think my hon. Friend (Sir B. Lytton) has acted with a wise discretion in not mixing up that vast subject with that of the civil service. But the House will recollect that this is the only measure, not of administrative reform, but of administrative alteration, that Her Majesty's Government have yet recommended to us, and so far as I can form an opinion upon their plan it seems to me to have been crudely and hastily adopted. They are the recommendations of bygone days, with little reference to the dearly-bought experience of the present, and I have yet to learn that the alterations which they recommend are such as meet the public exigencies, or recommend themselves to the approbation of those who have greatly and gravely thought of this matter. If we look to the civil service, we see even less to approve in the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. They had an opportunity a few days ago of proving to the civil service that they were resolved to act more in that spirit which I believe a majority of this House, and the wiser and calmer opinion of the public, have sanctioned. Three places among those highest in station and remuneration were created. To my surprise, I found three persons appointed, who may be no doubt most respectable and most competent for the office, but none of whom were trained for the civil service; and I venture to say that we could have no difficulty in naming a dozen men members of the civil service who are competent to fulfil the duties of those or any other civil offices. Why, some of these men have been twenty-five years, some thirty years, and some even more, toiling in the public offices of this country—the mainstay of Ministers, the columns on which, in distress, they have leaned—whose conduct in public life—if, indeed, you can call theirs public life—has been admirable—whose devotion, assiduity, intelligence, acquirements, and unwearied industry no language of mine can attempt to paint or describe. What must be the feelings of these men on finding, when an opportunity occurs to place them in an eminent position in the profession which they so early embraced and have so sedulously and faithfully pursued, and to put them, for the moment, in the light of day with an improved income most honourably and deservedly earned, that Her Majesty's Government pass them over in silence, and that three individuals—whose fitness I will not contest, for that has nothing to do with the question, but whose fitness certainly did not exceed their own, and who during the same period had not been devoting their unseen energies to the service of their country—are preferred to them, are adopted by the Government, and have their names circulated throughout the country, thus not only depriving the faithful servants of the civil administration of their due reward, but intimating to the country that the civil service cannot supply the State with men competent to discharge the required duties? I could have placed in that Royal Commission the names of individuals who would have performed the high duties imposed on them in a manner which no language of mine can do justice to, and yet these men are not selected to fill the offices, which strangers occupy. A merchant is selected—Mr. Howell, competent, I have no doubt, for his office—but every one feels that, because there is a certain cry in favour of merchants, this was considered a compliment, which, for aught I know, might influence a division. However, what is sport to the Minister is death to the civil service; and that, therefore, is an appointment of which this House should express disapproval. I shall not speak of the middle classes in the tone which the hon. Member for Surrey has employed. I shall leave him in the enjoyment of those caustic vagaries in which he indulges; but if he had stood forward to vindicate the claims of that most useful class of men, the civil servants of the country, he would have done more good than by the airy comments with which he favoured the House. I saw the other day a gentleman appointed, I think, Accountant General for the Secretary for War. That gentleman, Mr. Smith, has been, I believe, forty years in the public service, and is admirably qualified for the office. He is appointed to that place after forty years of service, and possessing qualifications which cannot probably be rivalled in this country, at a less salary than one of these strangers, introduced by the new appointments into the public service, receives with smaller claims. A stranger receives 1,500l. a year, and Mr. Smith, being a member of the civil service, gets an appointment with 1,200l. a year. These are little but significant instances. I say that, if Ministers are really sincere in the opinion which they have not expressed, but which they are about to take shelter under, that the civil service of the country ought to be recognised as a real profession, and that the great prizes ought to be reserved for those who have been trained as civil servants, these appointments, which were made only a few weeks or days back, could never have taken place. Well, what are the intentions of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken in this debate. I listened to his speech with that attention which is always due to whatever falls from a Gentleman in his position, but I confess I was unable precisely to ascertain from his statement what the Government intended to announce as their policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, indeed, that the Government intended to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, because, in his opinion, it was a vote of want of confidence, and being so, he said, if that Motion were carried, he and his colleagues meant to resign. Now, let me say this in a friendly spirit.—The right hon. Gentleman is an individual highly respected in this House. He is a scholar, and a man of amiable character, but he is not very experienced in Parliament; and I really must say, only in a whisper, that, in the present state of the Government, I think it is unwise to make these declarations, for I assure the noble Lord opposite, who is more wary, that if he knew the excitement which prevailed on these benches upon that declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would have been alarmed at it, and it required great powers of self-respect for hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House afterwards to adhere to the Amendment. I must impress upon the House that the Government are in a very peculiar position. The other day I brought forward a Motion, which was intended as a very mild censure on them, preliminary to the holidays. The Government immediately declared that the Motion was a vote of want of confidence, and insisted upon a great body of Gentlemen who agreed in the Motion voting against it. Now, to-night, another Motion is brought forward by a Gentleman, who voted against my Motion, and it is supported by all the Gentlemen who formed the majority on that occasion; and now we are informed by the Government that this is a vote of want of confidence. If, then, this Motion should be defeated by the aid of Gentlemen on my side of the House, I must say that if you put the two minorities together there will be found a great majority in favour of want of confidence in the Government. I think, therefore, this is not a prudent course on the part of Government to pursue; and they ought to consider the remarkable position in which they are placed. They are a Government condemned by the largest majority ever told in the House of Commons, and by the longest report ever produced from a Select Committee. Under these circumstances, the steering of those who do not wish the Government to resign is extremely difficult. I am bound to acknowledge the somewhat favourable position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the India Board possess in this House, they being the only two Ministers in respect to whom the country has not expressed want of confidence. Therefore, I think that most unauthorised sneers have been indulged in at the expense of those two Members of the Government, for I look upon them as the strength of the Cabinet. I think it a great thing for the noble Lord opposite to be able to say that there are two Members of his Cabinet whom the House of Commons has not condemned. I was endeavouring to infer, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the course which the Government would take to-night, and I have alluded to what the right hon. Gentleman said with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. But what did he say with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire? I understood him to say that there was no harm in that Amendment; but it depended on the interpretation put upon it, and that, if that interpretation were unfavourable to the Government, then the Government would not accept the Amendment. I wish the Government to accept it, but I cannot put an interpretation on it favourable to the Government; and when the Government asks the Opposition what they should do, it would require powers of appreciation such as the noble Lord opposite may possess to extract from such a course a vote complimentary to the ability or capacity of the Government. On the contrary, if the sincere opinion of the Government is that the policy recommended by the Amendment should be pursued, they ought long ago to have taken a course which would have anticipated the claims of Parliament and discounted the demands of the people; and, instead of accepting now an Amendment of such a decided character as that moved by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, they ought to have risen in their places and said, "We have had a great deal to do—laborious negotiations, which have not succeeded, and a war of doubtful fortune, and we have not had time to mature large and comprehensive measures necessary for the regulation of the great public offices, but we have given evidence of our intentions, and we direct attention to our last three appointments." "See," they might have said, "what course we have adopted as Ministers of State, and how we have selected from the civil service, on which we are always bestowing our fulsome praises, three Gentlemen, whom we found the most capable servants of the public." If the noble Lord had acted in that way, then I could have believed that the noble Lord would have accepted this Amendment in the spirit of sincerity; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Orders in Council, and said that all that had been recommended of a practical nature had been anticipated by those Orders, and we will hold out no prospect of anything else being done. Now, I will not depreciate the Orders in Council. They are not equal to what I would wish, but I am willing to take them for what they are worth, and they are not worth much. But the Orders in Council are only a small part of that which even the most moderate of us feel the necessities of our civil service require. They give no security for the professional character of the service. They do not secure to the permanent civil servants of Her Majesty the enjoyment of the great prizes of the profession in which they toil; and therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman wants to ride off on the Orders in Council, and offers them as a practical solution of the difficulty, then, I say, I am not satisfied myself, but, more than that, the Government is not justified in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire.

Sir, there is one topic on which, before I sit down, I cannot help touching. I have already referred to what were the intentions, and not only to the intentions but to the measures that were to have been immediately brought forward by the Government of Lord Derby in 1852. I remember that after we had felt it our duty to resign, a distinguished person, who was a political opponent, regretted our resignation of office at that time. He said he was sorry we had done so, and that it was not necessary for us to go out. I believe we were to have been turned out at Easter, but we anticipated by going out at Christmas; and this eminent person, while he deplored our fate, which he had wished to retard, said, "What could be done for a set of men who based the policy of their Government on such an incomprehensible crotchet as administrative reform?" I have often remembered that incident since. I believe our sympathising Friend is now in a responsible position, and I do not doubt has become a warm administrative reformer. Sir, I remember also the circumstances under which we retired from office. It was impossible, at that time, that we could have remained with honour in office, because from the moment we accepted that trust the noble Lord the Member for the City of London pursued us with such unceasing combinations to eject us from office that it was a hopeless task from the first to attempt to remain. Considering that the noble Lord had retired from office in 1851—that he had resigned office in 1852—that in no case had his retirement or resignation been occasioned by the conduct of the Opposition, but by the distrust of his own friends, and by quarrels and misunderstandings with his own colleagues—considering that Lord Derby, in 1851, had refused to accept the responsibilities of office, because he felt that office without a majority in the House of Commons was a I position which he ought not to fill—considering that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had himself recommended Her Majesty to send for Lord Derby—I have always thought that for a constitutional politician like the noble Lord it was a most extraordinary thing that before we could accept the trust we did take, absolutely because his own Government had crumbled away—before I could stand before my constituents for re-election, or take my place in this House, to undertake its business, the noble Lord had called his friends together and was bidding for support to eject us from our posts. I assure the noble Lord I do not make this observation with the slightest regret for what has passed, but rather because, as time goes on, and events develope themselves, it is possible to avail myself of it to "point a moral." What were the offers made by the noble Lord at the famous Chesham Place meeting, by which the liberal party was to be reconstructed, and we, who had taken the reins of power because the noble Lord was on two occasions incompetent to hold them, were to be ejected from office which we had not coveted with any eagerness? The noble Lord on that occasion called every section of the liberal party to his house in Chesham Place. There was the school of Manchester with its vigilant and justifiable ambition; there were all the Administrative Reformers in the shell; there were the inexorable asserters of pure radical principles, men of Spartan virtue, who only sought for power to assert a principle and would never take office except to carry it into successful execution. There they were, a mighty group, and had they only supported the noble Lord with the same unanimity which they showed at that meeting he might still have been Minister. It was a meeting of men to perform a deed which, when executed, filled them with some alarm. And what was the address of the noble Lord on that occasion? [Lord J. RUSSELL: There is no authentic statement of that address.] No authentic statement! I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells has a much better knowledge of its authenticity than I have; but there must have come from some one who was present the heads of an address that had such remarkable success. But what was that address? The noble Lord, before the new Government hardly was sworn in—a Government, remember, which had only thrown itself into the gap of the constitution from which he had fallen—the noble Lord said that he sincerely deplored all that had occurred; that he deplored bitterly the great want of mutual intelligence among the members of the Liberal party, and was willing to take a great part of the blame of that want of intelligence and good mutual understanding to himself; he said there had been com plaints that the Government had been constructed on too narrow a basis—that he was not disposed to quarrel with that com plaint—that he, profiting by experience could assure them that if they would all draw together—if the whole of the Liberal party would be unanimous in supporting him—there should be formed a broad bottomed Administration—that the are should be extended and the basis made a wide as they liked; that the men of the people should be found themselves in the Council chamber of the Sovereign, an that all they had to do to achieve these purposes was to terminate as soon as possible the Administration which the noble Lord himself had recommended Her Majesty to call into office. What has happened? You turned us out of office when we were about to give you an exemplary measure of Administrative reform. Have you got such a reform? You turned us out of office in a state of profound peace;—and I declare most solemnly my conviction that our leaving office has entailed upon you a dangerous, not to say, disastrous war. But where is the Government on a broad basis that you were promised? Where is the Administration on an extended area? Where are the men of the people in the Council chamber of the Sovereign? You have not only lost what you might have gained—administrative reform; you have not only gained what we lament and deplore—a dangerous war—but you have placed in power a Government framed on a most restricted and exclusive basis, and the principal occupation of your future careers will be to vote confidence in men who take every opportunity to treat you with the contumely you deserve.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, before I advert to the Motion which is now before us, I must say a word or two personal to myself with reference to accusations which were brought against me by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), at a meeting which lately took place in Drury Lane theatre. In that speech, made on an occasion with regard to which I am not wrong in saying that many persons represented as being there never were there at all, and that, with regard to there being public discussion, it was arranged that only two or three of the persons who had convened the meeting should speak upon the matter—at that meeting the hon. Member for Aylesbury is reported to have used the following expressions—and I conclude he was accurately reported, as he has not since contradicted it. Speaking of me he said— This was the only time he had seen a man jesting upon the sufferings of the people and making light of their unfortunate condition—and this, too, was done at a moment when all Europe was looking to the British Parliament for an example of wisdom, order, and liberal Government. Indeed, he must acknowledge, that he had never seen Lord Palmerston in earnest except when vilifying the people of this country. I am unwilling to make use of any expressions contrary to the rules of this House, but the hon. Member having made these charges in public—equally in public, and to his face, I tell him, that there is not a word of truth in the assertions which he then made. I never jested at the sufferings of the people; I never made light of their unfortunate condition; and, so far from having vilified the people of England, the whole course of my conduct, and every word which ever fell from my lips, here or elsewhere, has attested the respect and admiration which I feel for the people of this country, and the pride with which I am animated in belonging to a nation so noble and so distinguished. Sir, I wonder that when the hon. Gentleman made that statement a blush of shame did not suffuse his face at making charges which his conscience ought to have told him—if on points of this sort he has any conscience at all—were utterly and diametrically the reverse of the truth. I shall say no more about the Drury Lane private theatricals. Now, Sir, the Motion which we are now discussing, as explained by the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, has turned upon the army, upon diplomacy, and upon the civil service. The hon. Member did not in his speech at all discuss that question of which, upon former occasions, so much has been made—namely, the composition of the Government. That he entirely omitted. With regard to the composition of the Government, I, and I only, am responsible. I received the command of my Sovereign to submit to Her a list of persons to form my Government. In the selection I was led by no family connections—there is no Member of the Government who is related to me by any family connection. I looked out for those men who, being most distinguished by experience and talents in public life, who, as proved by their Parliamentary conduct, were most in agreement with me in their public principles—with whom I was most likely to be able harmoniously to act, by whose assistance the Government of the country would be most efficiently carried on. Therefore, to say that the Government is constituted on family principles, or on personal considerations, is a charge which the very existence of the person at the head of it entirely and completely disproves. With regard to all those charges which the hon. Member has made as to the administration of the army, and which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the War Department has gone through one by one, and entirely disproved every assertion, it is unnecessary I should trouble the House. With regard to the diplomatic arrangements, I was surprised to hear what fell from the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I was surprised, because he was criticising that department in which he was himself for a time employed. And employed how and why? When he charged the Government with systematic disregard of talent, and a dry, dogged adherence to routine and favouritism, did he forget that he himself is a living proof of the falsehood of those charges? Why was he made Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Department? Was it for family connection? Was it for routine? Was it for any other consideration that my noble Friend, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, without any personal knowledge of the hon. Member acting entirely upon what he heard of his talents and energy—which no man will dispute, whatever he may think of the discretion of his conduct—brought him from being nothing but paid Attaché at Constantinople to be Under Secretary of State here, and proved, therefore, the recognition of merit by the Government, and the desire to introduce into a Government department any one Who was thought to possess capacity to aid it? It is said, that none but the aristocracy are employed in the diplomatic service, and two persons were picked out for examples; the hon. Member saying that we have only two Ambassadors, and both those Ambassadors are Peers. Well, what Peers are they, and who are they, and how came they to be Peers? Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, our Ambassador at Constantinople, was not made an Ambassador because he was a Peer, he was made a Peer because he was an Ambassador. The peerage which adorns his brow was granted for long and meritorious and distinguished services. It was because he had Well served the public during the course of a long and honourable career that he was made a Peer, and it was not because he was a Peer that he was selected for the office which he now holds. Who is the other Peer? Lord Cowley. And how came Lord Cowley by his peerage? Why, his peerage was conferred on his distinguished father for his services to the State. He served during a long and honourable life, and towards the close of it, Was raised to the peerage as a reward for his service's; and Lord Cowley inherits, with the peerage transmitted by his father, those qualities which pointed out his father for the favour of the Crown, and made him a worthy nephew of the Duke of Wellington and the Marquess of Wellesley. I will Dot go into the whole string of invidious criticisms upon which the hon. Member has thought fit to enter, but I cannot help adverting to one part of them. He admitted that the consuls were well chosen, that they did their duty well; but he said in the East there Were a number of persons, consular agents, who are guilty of great abuses? Why, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Foreign Office did he not put an end to that system, which he says is so full of abuses? With his personal knowledge and local experience, why did he not represent to his chief that some change ought to be made in a system which was liable to be so converted to such bad uses? These agents are persons who serve without pay on account of the advantages and privileges which the position confers on them, and there would be great inconvenience to the commerce of the country if these agents did not exist, and great expense if We had to Send persons from this country to fill those offices with salaries. The hon. Member makes great complaint that there is no promotion in the consular service, that the consuls general are not appointed from persons Who have held situations in the service. I hold in my hand a list of consuls general, and there is hardly one who has not risen to that office from the post of vice consul, or from inferior situations in the consular service. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is pleased to make a personal reflection on the noble Lord who holds the office of Minister at Florences—he doubts the noble Lord's capacity for that situation. Why, that noble Lord has held high and important offices in the State and elsewhere, and I say it is an unheard-of effort of ill-will on the part of the hon. Member to intimate that he is not competent and hot capable of performing the duties of the office which he now holds. Then we come to that which has formed the most important part of the discussion in this debate—namely, the civil service of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman who has spoken on the other side (Mr. Disraeli) has informed the House of all the great plans which the Government to which he belonged had intended to carry into effect, had it pleased Parliament to allow them to do so. We know what a broad pavement good intentions make, The intentions o that Government would apparently have extended over a very considerable area but they were not laid down. Those intentions, excellent, no doubt, have how ever, in a great degree, been carried into effect by the present Administration. And here I must observe on the Way in which those who are disposed to criticise the Government deal with matters of this sort When anything is not done it is magnified into a thing of the utmost importance; No sooner is it done than they underrate it value. If we do not do a thing they say "Why, here, you have not done that, to want of which has been remarked upon for years, which has been recommend by Committees and Commissions, and in debates of this House, add how blamable you must be for not doing it." No sooner is it done than they say, "Lord a'mercy! it has been thought of for years. What is the merit of doing that? It has been recommended by every man who has had any experience or knowledge, and we do not give you the slightest credit whatever for doing it. We want you to invent something. We want you to do something nobody has ever thought of. We want you to correct evils never discovered, and adopt remedies no human being has ever imagined. Then we will say, yours is a Government deserving our confidence." We are told—and with great reason—that it is desirable to insure the appointment in the civil service of young men qualified to perform the duties of their situation. In many of the departments a very rigid examination has long been established. It has been said, "Aye, but that examination is merely a form." The right hon. Member for Wells the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hayter) can testify to the contrary, and that in those large establishments connected with the revenue of this country young men are constantly rejected, on account of their not being able to pass the examination required. I can say that a young man I myself recommended not long ago was rejected by the examiner. I regretted it on the young man's account, but I was glad to find that the examiners exercise such scrutiny as to the competency of young men who are candidates for appointments. However, the Government were not content with this local and separate examination; there was an Order in Council issued the other day for the purpose of establishing a uniform and general system of examination in all the public departments; and I trust that that will be attended with considerable advantage to the public service. I trust that, if that examination be conducted as it ought to be, it will be found that no young man will hereafter be appointed unless he possesses the qualifications requisite for the discharge of the duties belonging to the particular office to which he is nominated. But we must not deceive ourselves as to the attractions which the public civil service possesses. Even if the appointments to that service should be held out to public competition—which I contend it would not be at all advisable to propose—and even if you were to open an office to which young men might come to be examined, and put their names down as candidates for vacancies as they arose, still you must not imagine that with the salaries now given to the persons who are now employed, with the degree of labour which they are obliged to undergo, with the sacrifice of health, and lengthened hours of confinement they have to endure, and with the time they have to wait before they arrive at the head of their profession—you must not, I say, imagine that the civil service of the country, with these incidents, will ever hold out such a temptation to men of superior minds and talent as will induce them to refrain from those more promising modes of industry, which open to the energy of youth and enterprise a road to fame and fortune much more facile than the public civil service can possibly hold out. I say this to warn the House from entertaining undue expectations from any system of examination for the public service. I do not, however, say it to undervalue that system. I think it is a system which of entrusted to men of great ability, industry, and attainments will result to the interest of the public. But, as the noble Lord opposite has properly said, these changes cannot be brought on upon the sudden; you must wait many years before you can reap the fruits of changes of this kind; and therefore, while on the one hand, you cannot expect to find that men of first-rate genius will be attracted to your service by appointments at 90l. a year, so, on the other hand, it must not be expected that any great benefit will immediately arise from the institution of the proposed examinations. There are two very contrary opinions broached on this subject. The Gentlemen below the gangway have said that we ought not to follow mere routine in the appointment of men to the higher and more responsible offices in the Government; but that in selecting men to offices of responsibility and heavy duties we should go afield and make our selection from commercial men, men of sagacity, and who are by experience capable of performing the duties required. Well, the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House hold exactly the contrary doctrine. They say, make the civil service a profession by itself; make the higher offices a reward for the well performance of the duties in the lower offices, and when a vacancy occurs give it to somebody that has sprung up from the lower offices in the service. I think neither of these modes of action ought to be the invariable rule. It must depend upon the circumstances of the case. The appointments made the other day are examples of the two systems. When the office of permanent Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Department became vacant by the retirement of the gentleman who had long held it with great advantage to the country, my noble Friend Lord Clarendon appointed to that high and important office a most distinguished man holding office in the Foreign Department, and who had worked himself up by his talent, energy, perseverance, and ability, and who was a man possessed of great variety of attainments. Being deemed in every respect fit for the situation, to the honour of Lord Clarendon, and to the great advantage of the public, Mr. Hammond was appointed to fill that vacancy. That is an advantage of the system which the right hon. Gentleman recommends. The other instance I refer to is the appointment made by Lord Panmure. He had to appoint a person to superintend an important branch of the public service; he took Mr. Howell, who, though he had been employed in business very much connected with Government, had never yet actually held office under it; but, being a man of attainments, talent, knowledge, and general ability, he was reckoned perfectly competent for the duties he had to perform; and I have the satisfaction of saying, that even during the short space of time that Mr. Howell has filled that department, he has effected a very considerable saving in the expenditure of the establishment. Well, then, another vacancy occurred connected with the Army Clothing Department, and whom did Lord Panmure appoint to that? He appointed Sir Thomas Troubridge—;one of those heroes who had received a most severe and afflicting wound before the enemy in the Crimea, and who was an object of general interest on that occasion when those gallant heroes lately received rewards for their heroic services from the hands of their Sovereign. That is an appointment which shows that my noble Friend is not insensible to the merits of the gallant army whose services he superintends, and that while, on the one hand, he takes from the commercial world the fittest man for the discharge of the duties he is appointed to fulfil, on the other hand, he takes a distinguished officer for the performance of duties which are peculiarly referable to the profession to which he belongs. Well, these things show that Her Majesty's Government are alive to the duties which they have to perform.

Sir, we are asked whether we accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Aylesbury? It is unnecessary for me to go into objections which are evident as regards that Motion, because, as far as I can judge from the course of the debate, it is not likely that the minority on that Motion, even added to the minority on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite before Whitsuntide would give the Majority which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make out by arithmetical calculation. I must observe, that when the right hon. Gentleman says we (the Government) are condemned by a vast majority of the House of Commons, I say, on the contrary, favoured as we have been by the vote of confidence of the right hon. Gentleman himself, we have a very large majority in this House; and we are certainly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for that vote of confidence. For, though the right hon. Gentleman came to us in enmity, he parted friends—; He came to curse and remained to bless. He brought on a Resolution intended to do disservice to the Administration, but which resulted in a most satisfactory vote in its favour. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I feel myself absolved from the necessity of entering into any argument why the House should not accept it. When he talks of disasters impending over the country, and of discredit being done to the national character, why, I say that the national character never stood higher, and, so far from disaster, I think we have grounds for anticipating events of a very different and opposite character. We have in the Crimea, an army which, having recovered from the sufferings of a long and severe winter, is now in as fine a condition as ever a British army was that ever entered the field, and which, in point of numbers, health, equipment, spirit, and, in point of confidence in their officers, is equal to the army of any country—;an army fighting, too, side by side with an ally on whom this country may confidently depend, and, combined with whom, they are an equal match to the troops of the whole world, and with whom were they to give battle, I may safely prophecy a victorious result. So far from any discredit to the country, or from anticipating any disasters, I am sure there are not ten persons in this House who will vote with the hon. Gentleman who entertain a sentiment so little in consonance with the feelings of the country and with the prospects we are entitled to look forward to. We have been asked whether we will accept with sincerity the alternative proposed in the hon. Baronet's Amendment. I say in sincerity we do accept it. That Amendment pledges the Government, no doubt, to pursue that system—if you will so call it—of administrative reform, or official improvement which the country and this House require; and I can assure the House there is every disposition on the part of the Government to pursue that system. How is it possible that the Government can have any interest in pursuing any other course? Every Government must know and feel that any advantage it could derive from indulging friends or constituents with appointments, any strength it might acquire from conciliating individuals, are as nothing in the scale compared with the advantage, with the credit, and with the strength which it must derive from the efficient performance of the services it has to conduct. Sir, it must be the interest, as it is the duty, of every Government to endeavour to arrange the official establishments of the country in such a manner as may be most conducive to the public interests. This is undoubtedly a matter which cannot be effected without much inquiry, without much consideration, and without a considerable lapse of time. It is very easy to say, "Consolidate offices, and you will save money and accelerate the public business;" but if you consolidate offices by putting together offices the business of which is not the same kind, you add things different in their nature, and, instead of producing economy and despatch, you occasion nothing but confusion and mistakes in the conduct of business. It is, therefore, requisite that you should select departments of the same kind, and by consolidating them you will insure unity of decision and despatch in the transaction of business. We have done that with regard to the Ordnance—a department the rearrangement of which has for a long period been considered an object of great public necessity; but now, forsooth, we are told that this is nothing—that it is an old story—that there was no merit in doing it, and that there is doubt whether the new arrangement will be attended with any advantage. I anticipate great advantages from these arrangements in the Ordnance Department. It will be our duty to look into all other departments, and if we find that either by consolidating departments which are now separate we can procure more unity of direction, or that by any redistribution of business we can effect any material economy, we shall no doubt feel it our duty to pursue that course. I should be glad indeed if there was any prospect that the House of Commons would be disposed to give more adequate remuneration to some of those who are engaged in the civil service of the country; but I cannot forget, and the House I am sure has not forgotten, that not very long ago hon. Gentlemen opposite originated a proposal for reducing by 10 per cent the salaries of all clerks in the public offices. Those hon. Gentlemen then maintained that the salaries, which they now say afford inadequate remuneration to men of talent, enterprise, and ambition, should be reduced 10 per cent, without regard to the ability or fitness of the clerks, but according to an unvarying rule to be applied to every office. I must say, however, that if there was any reasonable prospect that some of these salaries might be made more commensurate with the decent maintenance of those to whom they are assigned, I should hail with satisfaction such an inclination on the part of the House; but in the meanwhile I repeat that in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet we accept it as a pledge on our part that we will direct our serious attention to a continued revision of the different offices connected with the civil service of the State, and that any improvement we can make, any administrative reform which we may think practicable with advantage to the public service, and with justice to the persons concerned, it will be our pride and our pleasure to adopt. I have only to add that, while I oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I shall be perfectly ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire.

MR. LINDSAY rose, amid loud and general cries for a division, and moved the adjournment of the debate. He said,—My reason for moving the adjournment arises from what has fallen from the noble Lord, the tone of whose speech leads me to suppose that he thinks everything is perfect, and who accepts the Amendment of the hon. Baronet because it suits his purposest But I have another and more important reason for my Motion. This House is aware that in another place I made certain statements connected with the maladministration of the Government. I heard that the Government intended to contradict those statements. I have sat patiently upon these benches for two evenings, expecting that the Government would do so, because the statements I made were very important, and I am not the man to make statements which I am not prepared to confirm. I desire the adjournment of the debate that I may repeat in my place in this House what I stated at Drury Lane. (Cries of "Go on," and "Divide.") I will go on if the House desires it. I place myself entirely in the hands of the House. [Cries of "Go on," and "Divide."] As I think it will he the more convenient course, and as I have other still more important statements to make, which will show the Government the necessity of thorough administrative reform, I prefer moving the adjournment of the debate.

ADMIRAL BERKELEY

I, too, have waited here all the evening, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman would get up and make those statements in his place which he thought proper to make at Drury Lane. I did not think it becoming to the House that I should take notice of such virulent untruths. I am prepared, when the hon. Gentleman repeats those statements in this House, where he is supposed to do so upon the character and honour of a representative of the people, to meet him fairly, and to tell him to his face that the statements are not founded in fact.

MR. OTWAY

I am sorry that the gallant Member who has just resumed his seat differs so essentially from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) as to the propriety of answering statements made elsewhere, for the noble Lord did not think it unbecoming to reply to the arguments which were urged by my hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) at Drury Lane. But the gallant Admiral who uses such courteous and Parliamentary language has not considered it right to accept now the invitation of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay). As that hon. Gentleman has said that, in addition to the statements which he made elsewhere he is prepared to bring charges of a still heavier nature against the Government, and as the gallant Admiral says he desires nothing more than an opportunity of meeting those charges, I think there is conclusive ground for continuing this debate, and a still stronger reason is, that there are many hon. Gentlemen who desire, on a subject of such great national importance, to offer some observations to the House. I therefore beg to second the Motion that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 336: Majority 253.

MR. LAYARD

, in resuming the debate, appealed to the indulgence of the House while he said a few words, not in reply, but in explanation. He regretted that the debate had not been adjourned after what had fallen from the gallant Admiral who had lately spoken, especially as he had made some observations couched neither in very courteous, nor in very Parliamentary language, respecting the veracity of his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, which that hon. Gentleman ought to have the opportunity of setting right with the House. With regard to that which fell from the noble Lord concerning the words he was reported to have used at the Drury Lane meeting—and which were not, perhaps, quite accurately reported—he had this explanation to make: He thought he could appeal to this House to say if, while the heart of this country was wrung with a deep feeling of pain, and sorrow pervaded the land, the noble Lord did not in this august assembly rise more than once in his place upon subjects of grave importance, and treat them with a levity which created the greatest astonishment throughout the country. He believed and trusted, however, that the tone of the noble Lord had since improved. If his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Leveson Gower) was in his place, he begged to assure him that when the other evening he made an allusion to Earl Granville, he had not the smallest intention of making any reflection upon that nobleman, but merely intended to say that the governing classes were confined very much to families, illustrating this by quoting his Lordship's remark that he had three cousins in the Government of Lord Derby. It was quite foreign to his intention to make any personal charge on Earl Granville, and he should always gratefully remember that noble Lord's kindness to himself. At the same time, he trusted he (Mr. Layard) should never be like the man in the small boat, to whom allusion had been made that evening, and if ever he did get into the ship he hoped he should never forget that there were others who wished to get in as well as himself. He was sorry to find that on another point his words on a former evening had been misinterpreted and had given pain in some quarter. When he spoke of the officer commanding the artillery, he had not alluded either to Brigadier Generals Strang-ways or Dacres, but to the officer commanding the artillery engaged at Inkerman. As to the cases brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War (Mr. Peel), he did not think he had any thing to say in answer to them, far they did not in any way invalidate his observations, which bore, not on individual cases, but on the system. The hon. Gentleman had merely shown that there had not been any personal ill-will towards those gallant officers; and, accepting this declaration, he was quite willing to leave the issue as regarded the system where it rested between himself and the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had, however, fallen into one error concerning Colonel Smith, who, he was assured, was never on the Sutlej at all; so that he (Mr. Layard) had stated what was strictly accurate, The hon. Gentleman asked him why he did not ask for a return. Now, he had had the misfortune to ask the hon. Gentleman for returns, and never got them, although some of them would have very much strengthened his case. With regard to the staff, he did not say that every officer on the staff should be provided with a certificate from Sandhurst, but that every such officer should be educated in a place recognised as a place of education for the staff. He would now ask the House to allow him to offer a word of explanation regarding a personal matter. It was true that a brother of his was on the staff, and that he (Mr. Layard) had, on the very night he left the Crimea, mentioned to Colonel Steele that his brother knew French and Italian well, and asked why he did not employ him as an interpreter, and he was employed as Interpreter on the staff a few days, afterwards; but he (My. Layard) had no idea they would put him on the staff. He had another brother employed in the island of Ceylon, whom scientific men thought had rendered great service to science. He returned home to this country in ill-health, and he (Mr. Layard) had been pressed to hack up a memorial which had been presented to the Duke of Newcastle soliciting an inferior post for him in New Zealand. This, however, he had refused to do. With respect to the vice consuls, he was still of opinion that those officers were, for the most part, very unfairly treated, and that the cases where vice consuls had been promoted to the office of consuls general were very few indeed. He could not call to mind any instance except the recent appointment to the consulship at Beyrout, in which, a vice consul had been promoted to that rank. There was one point upon which, before sitting down, he wished to offer some explanation to the House. An hon. and gallant Gentleman had been pained by supposing that he had applied the term "scandalous" in a personal manner to the conduct of Lord Hardinge. Now, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had no such intention, and he much regretted that such an impression should have been created.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 359: Majority 313.

List of the AYES.
Alexander, J.	Michell, W.
Bell, J.	Mowatt, F.
Bowyer, G.	Murrough, J. P.
Brockman, E. D.	Oliveira, B.
Brown, H.	Otway, A. J.
Cobden, R.	Parker, R. T.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Dundas, G.	Pellatt, A.
Dunlop, A. M.	Price, W. P.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S.	Reed, J. H.
Fox, W. J.	Roebuck, J. A.
Goderich, Visct.	Scholefield, W.
Greaves, E.	Scobell, Capt.
Grogan, E.	Scully, V.
Hadfield, G.	Smith, J. B.
Keating, H. S.	Thompson, G.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Tite, W.
Langton, H. G.	Vance, J.
Laslett, W.	Warner, E.
Lee, W.	Williams, W.
Lindsay, W. S.	Wise, A.
Lowe, R.
Maguire, J. F.	TELLERS.
Mangles, R. D.	Layard, A. H.
Miall, E.	Clifford, H. M.

List of the NOES.
Acton, J.	Barnes, T.
Adair, H. E.	Barrington, Visct.
Adair, R. A. S.	Bass, M. T.
Adderley, C. B.	Bateson, T.
Anderson, Sir J.	Beamish, F. B.
Annesley, Earl of	Beaumont, W. B.
Antrobus, E.	Beckett, W.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Bective, Earl of
Atherton, W.	Bennet, P.
Bagshaw, J.	Berkeley, A.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Berkeley, C. L. G.
Baird, J.	Berkeley, Sir G.
Ball, E.	Bethell, Sir R.
Ball, J.	Biddulph, R. M.
Baring, T.	Biggs, W.

Bignold, Sir S.	Elmley, Visct.
Blackburn, P.	Emlyn, Visct.
Bland, L. H.	Esmonde, J.
Booth, Sir R. G.	Evelyn, W. J.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.	Ewart, W.
Bramley-Moore, J.	Ewart, J. C.
Bramston, T. W.	Farnham, E. B.
Brand, hon. H.	Farrer, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Fenwick, H.
Brotherton, J.	Ferguson, Col.
Bruce, Lord E.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Buck, G. S.	Fergusson, Sir J.
Buckley, Gen.	Filmer, Sir E.
Burroughes, H. N.	FitzGerald, Sir J.
Burrowes, R.	FitzGerald, J. D.
Byng, hon. G. H. C.	FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.
Cabbell, B. B.	Floyer, J.
Cairns, H. M'C.	Follett, B. S.
Campbell, Sir A. I.	Forester, rt. hon. Col.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Forster, C.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Forster, Sir G.
Castlerosse, Visct.	Forster, J.
Caulfield, Col. J. M.	Fortescue, C. S.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Franklyn, G. W.
Cavendish, hon. G.	Freestun, Col.
Cecil, Lord R.	Freshfield, J. W.
Chambers, T.	Galway, Visct.
Chaplin, W. J.	Gardner, R.
Child, S.	Gaskell, J. M.
Clinton, Lord R.	George, J.
Clive, R.	Gilpin, Col.
Cobbett, J. M.	Gladstone, Capt.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.	Glyn, G. C.
Cocks, T. S.	Gooch, Sir E. S.
Codrington, Sir W.	Goodman, Sir G.
Coles, H. B.	Gore, W. O.
Collier, R. P.	Gower, hon. F. L.
Colvile, C. R.	Graham, Lord M. W.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Granby, Marq. of
Cotton, hon. W. H. S.	Greene, T.
Cowan, C.	Gregson, S.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Grenfell, C. W.
Cranfurd, E. H. J.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Crossley, F.	Grey, R. W.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald.	Grosvenor, Earl
Dashwood, Sir G. H.	Guinness, R. S.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Gurney, J. H.
Deedes, W.	Gwyn, H.
Denison, J. E.	Halford, Sir H.
Dent, J. D.	Hall, Sir B.
Dering, Sir E.	Hamilton, Lord C.
De Vere, S. E.	Hamilton, J. H.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.
Divert, E.	Hankey, T.
Dod, J. W.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Harcourt, Col.
Drummond, H.	Hastie, Alexander
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Hastie, Archibald
Duff, G. S.	Hayes, Sir E.
Duff, J.	Headlam, T. E.
Duke, Sir J.	Heard, J. I.
Duncan, Visct.	Heathcote, Sir G. J.
Duncan, G.	Heathcote, G. H.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Heneage, G. F.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Duncombe, hon. W. E.	Herbert, H. A.
Dundas, F.	Hervey, Lord A.
Dungarvan, Visct.	Hildyard, R. C.
East, Sir J. B.	Hill, Lord A. E.
Egerton, Sir P.	Hindley, C.
Egerton, E. C.	Holford, R. S.
Ellice, E.	Horsfall, T. B.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.	North, Col.
Howard, Lord E.	North, F.
Hughes, W. B.	Northcote, Sir S. H.
Ingham, R.	Oakes, J. H. P.
Irton, S.	O'Brien, Sir T.
Jackson, W.	O'Brien, C.
Jermyn, Earl	O'Brien, J.
Johnstone, J.	O'Connell, D.
Johnstone, Sir J.	O'Flaherty, A.
Jones, Adm.	Osborne, R.
Jones, D.	Ossulston, Lord
Keating, R.	Packe, C. W.
Kendall, N.	Paget, Lord A.
Keogh, rt. hon. W.	Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Kerrison, Sir E. C.	Palmer, Robt.
Kershaw, J.	Palmer, Roundell
King, J. K.	Palmerston, Visct.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Paxton, Sir J.
Kirk, W.	Peel, Sir R.
Knatchbull, W. F.	Peel, F.
Knight, F. W.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Knightley, R.	Percy, hon. J. W.
Knox, Col.	Phillips, J. H.
Knox, hon. W. S.	Phillimore, J. G.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Phillimore, R. J.
Langston, J. H.	Pilkington, J.
Langton, W. G.	Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Legh, G. C.	Portal, M.
Leslie, C. P.	Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.	Price, Sir R.
Liddell, hon. H. G.	Pritchard, J.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Pugh, D.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Repton, G. W. J.
Lockhart, A. E.	Ricardo, O.
Lockhart, W.	Ricardo, S.
Lovaine, Lord	Rice, E. R.
Lowther, Capt.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Luce, T.	Robertson, P. F.
Lushington, C. M.	Rolt, P.
Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.	Rumbold, C. E.
Macartney, G.	Rushout, G.
MacGregor, Jas.	Russell, Lord J.
Malins, R.	Russell, F. W.
Mandeville, Visct.	Sadleir, J.
Manners, Lord G.	Sawle, C. B. G.
Manners, Lord J.	Scrope, G. P.
March, Earl of	Seymer, H. K.
Marjoribanks, D. C.	Seymour, H. D.
Martin, J.	Seymour, W. D.
Massey, W. N.	Shafto, R. D.
Masterman, J.	Shelburne, Earl of
Matheson, A.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Matheson, Sir J.	Shirley, E. P.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Meux, Sir H.	Smith, W. M.
Miles, W.	Smith, A.
Milligan, R.	Smyth, J. G.
Mills, T.	Smollett, A.
Milner, Sir W. M. E.	Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Moffatt, G.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.	Spooner, R.
Monck, Visct.	Stafford, A.
Monsell, W.	Stanhope, J. B.
Montgomery, Sir G.	Stanley, Lord
Moody, C. A.	Starkie, Le G. N.
Morris, D.	Steel, J.
Mostyn, hon. T. E. M. L.	Stephenson, R.
Mowbray, J. R.	Stirling, W.
Mulgrave, Earl of	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Mullings, J. R.	Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Mundy, W.	Stuart, W.
Neeld, J.	Sullivan, M.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Sutton, J. H. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.	Welby, Sir G. E.
Tancred, H. W.	Wells, W.
Taylor, Col.	West, F. R.
Thesiger, Sir F.	Whatman, J.
Thornely, T.	Whitbread, S.
Thornhill, W. P.	Whitmore, H.
Traill, G.	Wickham, H. W.
Trollope, rt. Hon. Sir J.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Tudway, R. C.	Williams, M.
Tyler, Sir G.	Wilson, J.
Vane, Lord H.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Vansittart, G. H.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Verner, Sir W.	Wyndham, Gen.
Vernon, G. E. H.	Wyndham, H.
Vernon, L. V.	Wynn, Lt. -Col.
Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.	Wynne, W. W. E.
Vyse, Col.	Wyvill, M.
Walcott, Adm.	TELLERS.
Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.	Hayter, W. G.
Waterpark, Lord	Jolliffe, Sir W.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended proposed— That this House recommends to the earliest attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the necessity of a careful revision of our various Official Establishments, with a view to simplify and facilitate the transaction of public business, and, by instituting judicious tests of merit, as well as by removing obstructions to its fair promotion and legitimate rewards, to secure to the service of the State the largest available proportion of the energy and intelligence for which the people of this Country are distinguished.

MR. LINDSAY moved the adjournment of the debate, and said, that he was sure, after what had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Berkeley), that the House would afford him (Mr. Lindsay] an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which he had made the statements which had been referred to.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

thought, under all the circumstances, and considering the lateness of the hour, and also that the House was to meet at twelve o'clock, that it would be better to agree to the Motion of the hon. Member.

MR. DISRAELI

hoped that the noble Lord would consent to the Metropolitan Improvement Bill being taken before the Tenants' Compensation Bill.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that there was nothing like standing to an arrangement, and, therefore, the Irish Bill would be first taken.

MR. DISRAELI

then gave notice that, if he were present, as he hoped to be, when the House met at twelve o'clock (this day), he should move that the Metropolitan Improvements Bill should take precedence of the Irish Bill.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.

The House adjourned at half-past Two o'clock.