The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-06-19 00:00:00

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Layard's motion respecting
Administrative Reform was then resumed by Lord GODEILICII:
who at some length supported the original motion.
_ _ _

Mr. P. PEEL followed, and, referring to Mr. Layard's speech
on Friday, replied to all the cases of alleged favouritism at the
Horse Guards in the way of military promotion. As to the
motion, he considered that it was too large, and that it ex-
aggerated altogether the state of public feeling; he should
therefore vote against it.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND disagreed with every proposition ad-
vanced by Mr. Layard in his motion, as the hon. gentleman
assumed that his opinion was to guide all the world ; but as
he had not proved a single assertion out of the whole four
which constituted his resolution, it was not very likely that
his opinion would have much weight, notwithstanding the
proceedings in Drury-lane and the city of London. He ridi-
culed the phrase of Administrative Reform, and said those
who had used it could not tell what it meant. For these and
other reasons he should vote against the motion. The amend-
ment, too, was quite as wide of the mark as the motion itself.
Mr. Jonx MACGREGOR supported the motion.
Colonel LINDSAY entered into some explanations with re-
gard to the case of Lord Eustace Cecil, and other officers, in
answer to Mr. Layard.

Mr. .J. G. PRILLIMOBE disapproved of competition for pro-
motion as a rule in the civil service ; he did not, however,
object to examination, but he should vote against Mr. Layard,
because it was neither definite nor satisfactory.
Mr. DISRAELI stated what Lord Derby's government had
done in the way of Administrative Reform in the Irish offices
and in the Customs, and mentioned that it was their intention
to have brought the whole subject before parliament, with the
view of bringing every department in the State into a more
efficient condition. This course was one which should have
preceded all others at this time; but what Lord Derby's
government had done, and what they proposed to do, showed.
that the phrase " Administrative Reform" was at least a
definite expression. That was a measure of Administrative
Reform of which he had himself, as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, given notice, by which the whole revenue of the
country was paid into the Exchequer, without deducting the
expenses. Great changes in the civil administration were
necessary. Admission should be the result of fitness properly
tested, and its rewards of a higher scale, while the great offices
should be the reward of able servants, educated for the pur-
pose. These changes he had advocated more than three years
ago, and if they had been adopted many calamities might
firmovine
tbheeenhigaivicosidt
authored but the first
uthorityclearaitep shoulddistinc b
t explanation e to obtain
o f
the means to improve and reward the civil service, and for
this purpose he suggested a royal commission of practical
men, which, indeed, Lord Derby's government were prepared
to issue. He could not agree with Mr. Layard's motion, be-
cause our disasters were not owing to the civil service, but to
an incapable government. The amendment of Sir E. B.
Lytton accurately embodied that which ought to be the de-
cision of the house on this question. He was told the govern-
ment meant to adopt this amendment. If they did, they
ought to act upon it sincerely, and to appoint a royal com-
mission to enquire into the public offices and to pass acts of
parliament to carry out their recommendation. Let this be
done, and the country would derive great benefit from Ad-
ministrative Reform; but, after all, he doubted whether
government were sincere in their desire to improve and en-
theycourage the civil service, seeing the last three appointments
had mad
Lord PALMERSTON commenced by saying there was not
one word of truth in what Mr. Layard had stated of him id
the Drury-lane meeting, and he wondered that a blush of
shame had not come over the hon. member, when he was
making charges which his conscience must have told him were
utterly false. He denied that the present government was
constituted upon family principles; and,starting from this-
point, he went through the allegations of Mr. Layard, deny.-
ing them altogether, so far as they proceeded upon the as that merit was not rewarded in the public service.
Alluding to Mr. Disraeli's remarks, he said the preient
government had actually carried out all that Lord Derby's
government only intended to do. Having stated his objections
to Mr. Layard's motion, he said, in answer to Mr. Disraeli,
that government sincerely accepted the amendment, in fact,
it was their interest as well as their duty to make the civil
establishment as efficient as possible.
Mr. LINDSAY said, as he had some important statements to
make, which would show a great deal of mal-administration,
he should move the adjournment of the debate.
Admiral BERICELEY had waited to tell the hon. member
that his statements at Drury-lane were not founded on truth.
After a few words from Mr. OTwAY, the house divided—
For the adjournment
Against .
Majority against —253.
Mr. LAYARD then replied. He expressed his regret that
an opportunity had not been afforded to Mr. Lindsay to state
the charges of mal-administration, particularly after the un-
parliamentary deniabs of them by Admiral Berkeley,
The house then divided on the question.
46
For Mr. Layard's motion
Against ....................
Majority against......
The original motion was, consequently, lost.
On the motion of Mr. LINDSAY, the debate on the amend-
ment was adjourned till Thursday. The orders were disposed
of, and the house adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past
two o'clock.