The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-08 00:00:00

THE PEE

S.

which it was not necessary to go into, in the
coarse of which he asked that the impolitic letter
from the Shah should be withdrawn. That was not
granted, and the consequence was that Mr. Murray
struck his flag, withdrew from Teheran for Bagdad,
but had stopped on the road, as the differences
were pending, and it was hoped they would be satis-
factorily settled. Two very small vessels had been
sent up the Per. ian Gulf to protect British property,
but without the slightest view of provoking hostilities.
Under these circumstances he hoped the question
would be pushed no further.
Mr. LAYABD then withdrew his motion.
PURCHASE IN THE ARMY.

Sir DE LACY EVANS, on Tuesday, rose to move for
a select committee to consider, examine evidence,
and report to the house, on the expediency of abolish-
ing the system of sale and purchase of commissions
in the army, and on the means that may be
adopted f r the accomplishment of that object. The
gallant officer examined in detail the objections
offered to a change of the system—namely, that the
abolition of the sale of commissions would necessa-
rily cause their disposal to degenerate into a system
of seniority, and that the expense attending the
abolition would be enormous, and contended that
the latter objection was more apparent than real.
To the question what were the abuses of the exist-
ing system ? he answered that, from his own know-
ledge, many excellent officers were compelled, from
want of funds, to abandon all hope of rising in their
profession, and that neglect was the portion of
officers who had neither money nor interest. No-
thing could be more dishonourable to the country
than such a state of things, and now was the time to
apply the remedy. He thought the abolition of the
present system was only a question of time. The
Horse Guards should take steps to accelerate the
change, particularly with regard to tie higher ranks of
the army. A system of retiring allowances might pro
mote the desired obj et. In conclusion, the gallant
general explained that his object was to have an in
quiry into the subject, and if the Government objected
to a committee, and preferred a commission, he was
ready to modify his motion accordingly.
Lord GODERICII supported the motion. In
considering how the present system could be
best abolished, he calculated that, deducting the
value of commissions given away, the re
purchase of all the commissions in the army
would not cost more than 5,000,0001. or 6,000,000 t,
and that sum he thought not too large to pay for the
great advantage of getting rid of the evils of a sys-
tem of purchase, and exchanging it for another sys-
tem that would open a wider avenue to merit, which
he denied to be, as Lord Palmerston had alleged, a
matter of opinion; it was, he said, a matter of fact.

Mr. ELLICE warned the house to proceed with
great caution. No doubt the time had come when a
thorough examination of the question should be
made, but the question was one surrounded with
difficulties. He hoped, however, that the Govern-
ment would have the matter fairly investigated.

Mr. S. FITZGERALD supported the present system.
If the regulation price of commissions were always
adhered to, no advantage accrued to officers of for-
tune. The only injustice of it was the purchase of
unattached rank by officers not on service.
Mr. F. PEEL thought there was a great deal to be
said on both sides. He could not say that the
purchase system was unobjectionable, but the system
had coexisted with our army, and could not have
existed for so long a period without some advantages
that were found to compensate for its alleged disad-
vantages and drawbacks. Its opponents ought to
show positive evils connected with this system, and a
substitute which might be pzim& facie submitted to
the inquiry of a committee. This had not been done.
A system of promotion by merit would give rise to
complaints of unjust preference, as now prevailed
with reference to staff appointments. Under the
existing system, the benefit was not confined to the
purchasing class; the non-purchasing class of officers
likewise indirectly benefited. If it could be shown
that the purchase system rendered the army less
efficient, he should say, at once, abolish it; but he
asked for the proof of this. How would the interests
of the country be advanced by the abolition of the
system' The officers would not he of a better class.
A higher standard of military education, if required,
could be engrafted upon a system of purchase. He
denied the practical evils imputed to that system;
but, passing this by, he insisted upon the large pecu-
niary sacrifices which its abolition would entail, not
merely by the repurchase of commissions, but in the
enlarged scale of retirements, which he considered
would be a prodigal and wasteful expenditure of the
public money. He hoped the house would adopt the
motion.

Lord STANI.F.Y urged the necessity of instituting an
inquiry. If it were postponed, he feared it would
soon be forgotten or neglected. The present system
was the purchase b 3 private persons of a vested in-
terest in the public service. In no country in the
world did such a system as that of purchasing com-
missions exist; it did not exist in our own navy. It

was essentially anomalous, and a departure from
general rules, and could be defended only upon the
ground that it existed, and that to abolish it would
lead to greater evils. As to the money ques-
tion, he confessed it was not to be disregarded ; but,
after all, the highest estimate ever made of the value
of commissions—namely, 8,000,000/.—amounted
only to one half the sum which was yearly voted by
the house in time of peace for naval and military ser •
vices; and that sacrifice, whatever it might be, the
country would not be called upon to make at one
time, or in one sum ; but it would be scattered over
a long series of years. The system of purchase was
not an integral part of our military system, it was an
excrescence which had grown up in the course of
time:—

There were two questions to be asked—Were they
prepared to do away with the system ? And what other
were they prepared to adopt in its stead ? To the first
question, he answered unhesitatingly, yes ; for they could
not adopt a system more invidious in principle, or worse
in practice. ( Hear, hear.) The precise plan to be adopted
he was not prepared to state, but let them have an investi-
gation, let them learn the opinions of officers and civilians,
and he had no doubt that the investigation would result in
the adoption of a system very far superior to that at present
in existence. (Hear, hear.)

Colonel LINDSAY said that of all the speakers in
favour of the motion none had pointed out any prac-
tical mode for securing the efficiency of the army on
the abolition of the present system. He thought
that the purchase system, instead of being abolished,
should be improved. He did not know how purchase
in some form could be excluded from the army. It
had crept into the Indian army ; and who was to
prevent money being given to induce an officer to
retire? He was an advocate of a system of pur-
chase, because it prevented jobbery. Promotion
without purchase would give rise to constant sus
picions that other interests than merit were exerted.
The present system secured physical efficiency, and
we might have mental efficiency under it if we went
properly to work.
Mr. HEADLAM objected to the existing system,
because it placed the State in a false relation to the
service, producing evils to both. He considered the
State to be in debt to the army in the aggregate
amount of the purchase money of the commissions.
lf, therefore, the State was called upon to pay this
sum, there would be no injustice in it.
Colonel NORTH was averse to the abolition of the
purchase system, which would prejudice non-com-
missioned officers receiving commissions.
Mr. alusies thought the subject should be judi-
cially investigated by a rnyal commission.
Colonel Anare was of the same opinion.
Lord PALMERSTON admitted the abstract inex-
pediency of the purchase system, but explained that
it possessed many advantages, such as the facility it
afforded for the retirement of elderly officers, and the
substitution of youthful and energetic successors.
All substitutes fur the system hitherto proposed
were either imperfect or enormously expensive in
their operation. Another advantage attached to the
purchase system which should not be undervalued
was, that under its protection the army was more
likely to be officered by gentlemen. The noble lord
added that he had no objection to have the whole
subject investigated, if the inquiry were left to a
mixed commission to be appointed by the Crown.
Sir DE L EVANS, in the course of a brief reply, in-
timated his assent to this proceeding.
The motion was then withdrawn, on the under-
standing that a royal' commission was in due course
to issue.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Thursday, rose to move
his promised resolutions on the subject of national
education. Remarking upon the importance of the
subject, and sketching the present state of education
in this cou trv, he pointed out that there were
upwards of 4,000,000 children between the ages of
five and fifteen, of which only 1,730,000 attended
school. He did not deny that the Clromittee of
Council on Education had done much by wisely
expending the sums placed at their disposal in train-
ing teachers, and in generally bettering elementary
education, but with such advantages there had unde-
niably been great defects. The attendance was in:
adequate, the chiblea left school at too early an
age, and the schoolmaster s were often below par in edu-
cation. Mr. Horner, alluding in one of his most recent
reports to the operation of the education clauses of
the Factory Act, mentioned that, having been struck
with the ignorance of one of those so-called " school-
masters," he ventured to ask him whether he could
read, and the reply was "Yes, I can summat."
Mr. Norris, of Staffordshire, i n his report last year
of the examination of twenty four boys of fifteen years
of age in the mines, and who had been at school till
they were nine, asked them the names of the four
Evangelists, which they did not know, and to the
question, "Which of the disciples betrayed Jesus r
they answered, " Peter," or " Abraham." Now, it
appeared to him that Parliament should lay down
two principles, from neither of which it should
depart—first, to make the education of the country

•

222

complete; and, secondly, to maintain, encourage,
and as far as possible improve, that wLich was good
in the existing system. With regard to the first, we
should, he thought, bring the education of the
people of this country at least to the standard in
other countries—Switzerland and the United States,
for example. Sir J. Pakington had proposed a plan
of rating that should be permissive, and that the
education should be free; but he (Lord John) though►t
it clear that we could hardly maintain the present
syytem of grants from the Committee of Privy
Council and free schools at the same time. He pro
posed to build upon the foundation of the present
system, bearing in mind that it was intended to
appoint a Master of Education. The noble lord
then proposed his resolutions in detail, explaining
the principles of each as he passed from one to the
other. The resolutions were as follows :-
1. That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient to
extend, revise, and consolidate the minutes of the Com-
mittee of Privy Council on Education.
2. That it is expedient to add to the present inspectors
of Church schools eighty sub-inspectors, and to divide
England and Wales into eighty divisions for the purposes
of education.
3. That it is expedient to appoint sub-inspectors of
British, Wesleyan, and other Protestant schools not con•
nected with the Church, and also of Roman Catholic
schools, according to the present proportions of inspectors
of such schools to the inspectors of Church schools.
4. That, on the report of the inspectors and sub inspec-
tors, the Committee of Privy Council should have power to
form in each division school districts, consisting of single
or united parishes, or parts of parishes.
5. That the sub-inspectors of schools of each division
should be instructed to report on the available means for
the education of the poor in each school district.
6. That, for the purpose of extending such means, it is
expedient that the powers at present possessed by the
Commissioners of Charitable Trusts be enlarged, and that
the funds now useless or injurious to the public be applied
to the education of the middle and poorer classes of the
community.
7. That it is expedient that in any school district where
the means of education arising from endowment, subscrip-
tion, grants, and school-pence shall be found deficient, and
shall be declared to be so by the Committee of Privy
Council for Education, the ratepayers shall have the power
of taxing themselves for the erection and maintenance of a
school or schools.

8. That after the lst of January, 1858, when any school
district shall have been declared to be deficient in adequate
means for the education Df the poor, the quarter sessions
of the peace for the county, city, or borough shall have
power to impose a school rate.
0. That where a school rate is imposed, a school com-
mittee elected by the ratepayers should appoint the school-
masters and mistresses, and make regulations for the
management of the schools.
10. That in every school supported in whole or in part
by rates a portion of the Holy Scriptures should be read
daily in the school, and such other provisions should be
made for religious instruction as the school committee may
think tit, but that no child should be compelled to receive
any religious instruction or attend any religious worship
to which his or her parents or guardians shall on con-
scientious grounds object.
Then came the difficulty as to the attendance of
children after ten years of age, and he proposed that
the employers of such children should be required to
furnish a certificate of their attendance, and should
pay for their instruction. There remained a large
class still more difficult to deal with—namely, chil-
dren between nine and fifteen, who were neither at
school nor at work, but were, in fact, idle. He did
not think it possible to compel their parents to send
such children to school ; but he proposed to offer
every encouragement, by prizes, diminution of school
fees, libraries, and other inducements, to attract
such children to school. Respecting the cost of a
more complete educational system, Lord J. Russell
computed that instruction was required for 3,600,000
children, and would involve an expenditure of about
3,200,0001. But this sum, he added, would be dis
tributed over a wide area, and be collected from
numerous sources, comprising subscriptions, endow-
ments, school-pence, national grants, and local rates,
and would thus be rendered comparatively light in its
incidence. He concluded by again briefly adverting
to the infinite importance of the subject, and the ne-
cessity of adopting without delay either the plan he
had outlined or some equivalent thereto.

Mr. HENLEY fully concurred in many of the obser-
vations of Lord J. Russell, but doubted whether he
was not attempting too much.
Lord R. Grosvenor, Mr. Adderley, and Mr. E.
Denison followed the same course.
Mr. ROEBUCK was for secular education.

Sir J. PAXINGTON offered his hearty thanks to
Lord J. Russell for the manner in which he had
dealt with this question, which he trusted would not
be treated as a party question. He hoped all would
act together.

Mr. M. GIBSON was an advocate of a secular sys-
tem of national education, if a national education we
must have.

Mr. MULL was of opinion that in schools sup
potted by public rates or taxes the education should
be secular.