The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-23 00:00:00

JUNE 23, 1855. Vrott6ings in Varliamtnt. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. Lord Gonzales, on Monday, resumed the debate on Mr. Layard's motion. After referring to the report of the Sebastopol committee, which had just been read at the table, as a proof of the urgent necessity of Administrative Reform, he inquired what the Government had as yet done. They had consolidated the war departments, and issued the orders in council. For the first, it did not appear to conta in . any provision for improving the plan of promotion in the army. For the second, Sir S. Nortlicote had already shown what it was worth. It seemed to him to be indispensable that any person offering himself for examination should be perfectly independent of Government nomination. An annual return of all appointments to the civil service should be made out, and the reasons given why particular persons were selected for staff appointments. He then attacked the argument that it was necessary to keep up party influence, and argued from the disunited state of parties on both sides of the house on the folly of attempting to bind heterogeneous elements by the link of patronage. He supported the motion, as necessary in the present state of the public mind, which was raising, in consequence of the delay of reform, an unjust outcry against the aristocracy. He did not think that all reforms could be carried at once—a long course of reform would be necessary to satisfy the country. Amongst other things, he advocated greater freed pm in the removal from their offices of incompetent persons. Mr. F. PEEL addressed himself to Mr. Layard's attacks on the system of promotion in the army. That gentleman had supported his allegations by citing particular proofs, and those he proposed to refute. It had been said that twice as many rewards bad been given to staff officers in the Crimea as to regimental officers. Now, the actual fact was the precise contrary. He then entered into detailed ex planations of Mr. Layard's cases, one after another, and endeavoured to establish that each of them was in accordance with the necessary rules of the service, that they violated no principle of justice, and that the charges both of favoritism and neglect were founded on misapprehensions of the real facts, and broke down when fairly tested. He came next to Mr. Layard's recommendations, argued that his plan of making a part of the commissions in the several regiments free would produce confusion and injus tice, that plans for educating the staff were at that moment under the consideration of a committee, and that the privileges of the Guards had already been seriously invaded. He concluded by some remarks on the undiminished reputation of England in the eyes of foreign nations. Mr. DRUMMOND, in defence of the aristocracy, asked if the witlille classes were perfect administrators, or perfectly pure. He referred to the scrapes in which Mr. Lindsay, the shipowner—one of the loudest advo cates for Administrative Reform—had got into in the management of his ships, and instanced the conduct of the East India Company, belonging exclusively to the middle classes, as full of jobbery and corruption. Had the middle classes in the great towns succeeded in draining them ? He quizzed Mr. Layard and his friends as volunteer statesmen, and who, like other volunteers, were not statesmen, though like them. He could not see the use co; either of the resolutions —thought that constitutional government had come to a stand—that the middle classes had taken the executive into their own hands, so that it was im • possible for it to go on—and that the Star Chamber was not so iniquitous towards private individuals as committees of the House of Commons. Mr. Jose MACGREGOR believed that all depended on the heads of the Governments —thought that fitness for office was less considered in this country than in any other—and deprecated the debate as useless. After Colonel LINDSAY bad explained certain . cir cumstances c onnected with individual promotions, and Mr. J. G. PRILLiMORE had said a few words against the motion, DMr. DISRAELI rose to reply to the sneers of Mr. rummond at Administrative Reform, and took the opportunity of explaining the intentions of Lord Derby's Government on that great question. It had appointed commissions to inquire into all branches of the public service, and had come to the conclusion that what was now called Administrative Reform was imperatively required. Feeling the necessity of great financial reforms, they were anxious to obtain the largest possible surplus to deal with them effectually, and felt that for that object the first require ment was efficiency in the several departments. That of Ireland had been first dealt with, and a saving effected of twenty five per cent. After that experiment, Lord Derby's Government had resolved to bring the whole question before the house, and to have asked the house to recommend . to her Majesty the issuing of a commission to inquireinto the con duct of all departments of the State, .with a view of drawing from its report the regulations necessary for the intended reforms. Two reforms he should THE PRESS. have at once it'll on the Customs, the other on the management of the Exchequer—a re form which, with the assistance of himself and his friends, had been effected by his successors. Retain ing his opinion that great changes were necessary in our administrative system, he thought that entrance into the civil service should be the result of substan tial and real tests of fitness, that the services should be better rewarded, and be made a distinct profes• sion. But all this should have been preceded by a commission, that it might have been carried out upon definite ideas; and he believed that if he had had the opportunity of issuing that commission the civil service would now have been in a very different state from what it was actually. Adverting to the terms of Mr. Layard's motion, he could not agree that our late disasters were attributable to routine, but rather to an incapable Government, unconnected by the mutual sympathy and private regard necessary to the success of any Cabinet. The amendment of Sir B. Lytton received his entire adhesion ; it expressed precisely the policy which Lord Derby's Government were prepared to recommend. If the present Go vernment likewise adopted it in the spirit of sincerity and truth, it was bound to act accordingly—to issue a royal commission, and from its report to draw out regulations for the conduct of the public offices, and for those regulations to obtain a parliamentary sanction. He would not destroy the system of patnn age ; though merit should be the test of promotion. The judges of that merit should be the Ministers of the Crown, and the judgment should not be left to a fanciful system of competition foreign to the genius of the country. He argued that the perception of the fitness of individuals for the places was one of the first qualifications of a Prime Minister. He could see little in the precedents of the present Ministry to induce him to believe that it intended to deal se riously with the question they had brought forward on crude measures for the army ; and for the civil service they had done nothing. He criticised in some detail certain late appointments, whereby he said men not superior to those already in civil offices, and not themselves trained to those offices, had been placed in situations where they excited the indignation of tried public servants who had then been overlooked. The Government might adopt the amendment; but if it was serious it should long ago have taken a course which would have anticipated the decision of the house, and discounted the de mands of the people. He concluded by a vigorous declamation on the conduct and position of the Ministry, the manner in which they had been placed in power, and the restricted basis on which they conducted it, after they had assumed it on the prin ciples of a broad-bottomed and extended Adminis tration. Lord PALMERSTON began by replying to Mr. Layard's speech at Drury Lane where he had charged him with jesting at the sufferings of the people—a charge which he most indignantly denied. He proceeded to defend the composition of his Go vernment, no member of which, he said, was related to him by any family ties. As to the charges in Mr. Layard's speech in that house, those on the army were already disposed of by Mr. Peel. To those on the diplomatic service he was himself an answer. He had been made Under-Secretary of State neither from family connections nor adherence to routine. He defended the diplomatic body from the aspersions which bad been cast upon them. Coming then to the attack of Mr. Disraeli, he denied the right of his Government to take credit for reforms which they had never carried out, claimed for his own the merit of having realised his intentions, and said that what it had done was underrated, and what it had to do was undefined. It had made examinations a reality— but examinations must not be trusted too far, nor would throwing them open always secure first-rate men, who would be attracted by more lucrative and promising professions. After defending the appoint• ments attacked by Mr. Disraeli, he promised the earnest attention of his Government to Adininistra tive Reform, saying that it could have no possible in ducement to follow any other course, detailed what had been already done, and dilated on the inquiry, time, and consideration necessary before all could be done that was required. He accepted the resolu tion of Sir B. Lytton in perfect sincerity, as a pledge that the Government would direct its most serious attention to a continued revision of the civil offices of the State. An attempt was now made to adjourn the debate, but it failed, and after Mr. LAYARD had said a few words in reply, his motion was rejected by 859 to 46. On Thursday Sir E. Lytton's amendment was adopted at the close of the evening without any dis cussion, and with a single dissentient voice. CAPTAIN MACLURE. A committee to inquire into the propriety of grant ing a reward to this gallant navigator for his services in the Arctic Seas was on Tuesday moved for by Mr. lilAcxEsziE, and assented to by Lord P.iMERSTON, who passed a warm eulogium on the perseverance, courage, and daring of Captain Madura. THE HANGO MASSACRE. A conversation on this sad affair in the Lords on Thursday brought out from the Government an ex planation of the course they had pursued since the intelligence arrived. The Earl of MaLtizsaurty, after saying that it was the interest of every Government in Europe that the offenders should be visited with condign punishment, inquired what course her Ma jesty's Government intended to pursue. The Earl Of CI.LREWUON replied that the outrage was so horrible and infamous, and so utterly at variance with the laws of civilised nations, that he was compelled to believe that the perpetrators could not have acted upon the instructions of their supe riors—it was rather the brutal act of some un authorised subordinate. As soon as ho had received information of the transaction, he had addressed the papers containing an account of it to our Minister at Copenhagen, and instructed him to request the influ ence of the Danish Government that the outrage might be brought under tae notice of that of Russia, adding that unless that latter Government took some steps to mark their sense of its brutality it would justify severe reprisals. The Earl of ELLENBOROUOR suggested that Admiral Dundas, acting on his own suggestion, might probably have ad dressed representations to the Russian autho• rides. Earl GRANVILLE remarked that even if such was the case a double communication would do no harm. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that if the Russian Government attAuxipt4d to defend so atrocious an act, or to evade its responuibility, it would be our duty to apply to every Government in alliance with us, and every civilised people, to unite in a protest against the conduct of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. ARMY COMMISSIONS. Mr. HEADIAII on Tuesday moved for a committee to prepare an address to her Majesty, praying that the value of the commissions of officers dying in ac tive service during the present war should be paid to their representatives. He protested against the in justice of causing men who died in the service of the country to lose the value of their commissions, when officers dismissed the army were often allowed to receive it.. Mr. F. PEEL objected to the motion on the ground of impossibility of defining the exact case in which the representatives of the officers so dying should receive the value of their commissions. Why limit it to the present war ? Why not extend it to officers dying in war against the Katfirs? It would give to officers a direct pecuniary interest in their commie sions, and materially interfere with their being placed on half-pay. Colonel DUNNE thought that, after the country had recently realised a large sum by the sale of va cant commissions, it could afford to do justice to the families of those who had died on service. Lord A. PAOET, after detailing the expenses and low pay of officers on service, thought that something more ought to be done for their widows and orphans, in which view he was supported by Colonel NORTH. Mr. RICE also supported the motion. Lord PALKERSTON said that the subject was in volved in the great question of the sale of commis sions, which was now so much discussed. He admitted that the representatives of officers killed in action might be allowed to take their choice between receiving the value of their commissions and taking the pension now granted. As to the exact pecuniary part of the question, he denied that a man invested his money in the army with the same views with which he would invest it iii the Three per Cents ; other motives were involved—reputation, considera tion, and condition in life. The principle of the motion must be extended to peace as well as war, if it was to be adopted in all cases where officers died in actual service. Where was the line to be drawn between officers dying of fever in the Crimea, and those dying in the same way in the West ladies or at the Cape? He trusted that, after the admission be bad made, the matter might be left in the hands of the Government. Alter some further conversation, the motion was withdrawn. CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE LAW. Mr. LOCKE Knta en Tuesday moved a resolition which set forth that a commission had been issued in 1853 to inquire into such statutes as had been repealed, had expired, or had become obsolete, with a view to their removal from the statute-book; that the commission bad in consequence published a re port containing an expurgative list, yet that no bill, taking such list as its groundwork, had as yet been prepared ; and that the preparation of a declaratory bill on the subject ought no longer to be delayed. He founded his motion on the chaos now existing in the law, the enormous number of new statutes, and the consequent necessity fur a revision of the whole. The ATTORNEY. GENERAL and several other mem bers concurred in the principle of these observations, but said that the report was so hastily drawn up, and the expurgated list so incomplete, that no bill could be founded upon The motion was adopted against the Government, by 43 to 28. 585