The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-07 00:00:00

THE . SUN, ON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, Eft

ask whether it min could subsist upon it or not. (near.)
The hon. and gallant member then gave the sums paid an=
nually to the different grades of officers, and stated that the

pay of tt litilitetatit-eotonet was only £3lO a year. Ito

would ask whether any man having any affection for his
children would place them in a position where they would
only get such a small sum at so late an age as 35 or more,
with all the expenses attending it. (Hear.) Now he be-
lieved that if the house did away with the system of pur-

chase they must increase very considerably the pay, for no
man would be able to support himself and be free from

debt. (Hear, hear.) He would mention that England
was the place where an officer was free of expense, because
he was nobody ; but when abroad the expenses were consi-
derably increased, and he when receiving only £7 a month'
had been obliged to expend £l7 or more. The hon. and gal-
lant member then referred to the pay in the civil service,

and stated that a young man entering that service at 18 or
20 years of age, at a hundred a year, could go on till ho ob-

mined £6OO or £BOO a year. Ho further referred to the
Fact that a subaltern in the army had to move about from

place to place, which of course added to his expenses. As
an instance of how little a man could Faye in the army, he
might state that Sir Charles James Napier, on reaching
Bombay at the age of 60 years, and after having filled a
great many staff situations, possessed only £2 after all his
expenses were paid. (Hear, hear.) Ho believed that the
purchase system had been no bar to the commercial classes
going into the army. (Hear, hear.) As to the seniority
system, an hon. and gallant officer had stated that twenty-
four years as a subaltern was about the average ; but as
that branch of the service to which he belonged had been
doubled in late years, he had received promotion after 16
years' service ; but they could not always be going on at
the same rate. (Hear, hear.) To open up the army for the
middle classes was a question of money; and unless the
house was prepared to pass a resolution to that effect, and
make good the sum which would be required, he must vote
against the motion of the hon. and gallant member. (Hear.)
Col. LINDSAY said he had watched the system of pur-
chase for many years, and he believed it operated well for
the service and the public. The hon. and gallant member
referred to the evidence given by Capt. M'Pherson before
the commissioners, and it was to the effect that that gallant
officer had been passed over 18 times, and he himself ac-
knowledged that if there had been no system of purchase
he would have been for a much longer period in the posi-
tion of captain. He (Col. Lindsay) was quite willing to
admit that if it could be surely proved that the system of
purchase was vicious in principle and not for the benefit of
the army or the public good, the house ought to abolish it
—(hear, hear)—and come forward and repay the money
already sunk by the officers in the service. (Hear, hear.)
But he thought no case had been shown to the house why
they should vote such a large sum for such a purpose.
(Hear, hear.) He believed the system of purchase was a
most efficient system, both for the army and the public
good—(hear, hear) and he had not heard a word pro-
pounded which had altered his views. Ho knew that pro-
motion without purchase had been granted to a very consi-
derable extent. In the space of 211 years before the Crimean
war, 428 officers arrived on an average of 25 years at the
position of lieut.-colonel, while those by purchase arrived
at the same grade in 22 years and 8 months. He thought
that was sufficient to show that the system of purchase was
useful in giving youth and vigour to the ranks of the army.
Again, he might observe that the system of purchase had
been beneficial to the poor man as well as to the State.
In the French army there was a system of compulsory
retirement at certain ages and at certain rates of pay.
A lieutenant-general retired at sixty five years of age on a
pension of from £3OO to £350 per annum ; a lieutenant-
colonel at 62, on a pension of from £l2O to £150; a cap-
tain at 53, on a pension of from £9O to £lOO ; the sums
varied according to length of service. (Hear, hear.) He
could not conceive it possible that such a system could exist
in the British army. The idea of a major being obliged to
retire at 56 years of age, and a captain at 53, was absurd.
The system of purchase was quite compatible with the
principle of examination. (Hear.) He spoke from expe-
rience, because he had the honour of commanding a bat-
talion, and he had conducted an examination of officers.
Before entering the army the-candidates were examined by
a board of examiners, but he thought that in many in-
stances the questions were utterly absurd. (Hear, hear.)
He would repeat that, if the present system of retirement
from the army was wrong, it would be the duty of the
house to find a large sum of money for the purpose of alter-
ing it. (Hear.) The total number of officers of the army
on retired full pay was 8,167, the amount they received
£56,714. On the other hand, the number of such officers
of the seniority corps of the Royal Artillery was 1,072, and
the amount received by them £32,232, being only £24,000
less than the amount received by eight timesa. number
of officers of the army. The retired pay must therefore be
enormous if they wished to have an exodus out of the
various ranks of the array which would secure efficiency.
No doubt merit ought to be the ground of reward ; but in
time of peace merit was a very difficult thing to ascertain ;
and the merits of the best officers could not be discovered till
they were displayed in the field. It might appear a singular
argument, but he certainly thought there was a certain
amount of control and discipline connected with the system
of purchase. Men knew that they had embarked a certain
amount of capital in the service, and that knowledge exer-
cised a certain degree of control over them. The system of
purchase had stood the test of both peace and war, and he
believed it promoted the efficiency of the army, and was for
the public good.
Col. P. HERBERT felt great regret at being obliged to
oppose the gallant general (Sir Deal,. Evans) on a military
question ; but he must say that on a subject like that, which
'excited general attention among large constituencies who
had not much acquaintance with it, he should rely more on
the gallant general's opinion if he was further removed
from Westminster. He understood him to say that in the
Crimea the llorses of the artillery suffered in a much greater
proportion than those of the cavalry.
Sir DE L. EVANS said he stated the reverse.
Col. P. HERBERT said the artillery lost, he believed,
comparatively speaking, quite as many horses as the cavalry.
Certainly that was the case as regarded the two batteries
which were under the personal command of the gallant
general himself. The 360 horses with which the force be-
gun was reduced to 40 or 50. (Hear, hear.) He hoped
the house would not allow itself to be carried away by the
opinions of officers of foreign armies. In conversation with
such persons ho had found them under an impression that
in man was able to purchase commis-
sionthsios unvceorthtry a rich
eheadof any one who had not as much money
as himself—in fact, that the commissions were all obtained
by the highest bidders; and when he explained to them
that their promotion was a strictly seniority one, and that
if the officer otherwise entitled could pay a certain amount,
no one could purchase over his head, their opinion of the
system seemed at once to be modified. He was willing to
rest the deem° of the purchase system on the grounds of
the efficacy of the service and public economy. He thought
no one would deny that, generally speaking, it was desir-
able that officers of all grades should be in the vigour of
life, but at the same time tho house must consider what
would be the cost of the retirement which would be neces •
sary to keep up the system of promotion. Take the case
of the East India Company's army. The retirement on
full pay as captain was allowed in it after 18 years'
service, and as major after 22 years' service; yet the pro-
motion in that army was before the mutiny lamentably slow
among officers drill ranks. The system of purchase existed
in the East India Company's service, which was a remark-
ably oppressive one, and he believed that many young offi-
cers had been forced into debt by that which was not dis-
tinctly optional, as it is in our own army. (Hear, hear.)
As regarded the Royal Artillery and Engineers, between
1830 and 1810, several subalterns were promoted to be cap-
tains, after from 20 to 22 years' service, and several con-
tinued captains after from 20 to 29 years' service. Was that,
he asked, a system to which the house wished to reduce the
rest of the army ? (Hear, hear,) He admitted that the
case of old and meritorious officers was deserving of consi-
deration, but in point of fact it was considered at the Horse
Guards, and it should be borne in mind that such persons
entered the service, well knowing to what system they were
to be subjected. The grounds upon which he placed his op-
position were those of efficiency and economy to the public
service, as he believed that if the motion were successful it
would affect both in a most injurious manner.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that the subject which they had
been called on to discuss was one of the most complicated and
difficult that could be well submitted to their consideration
and it would be wise in coming to it, if they first attempted
clearly to understand and to define the questions which they
were about to discuss. He agreed inthe abstract proposition
that seniority was in itself a bad system of promotion ; but
when they used that expression it seemed to imply that it
was something unknown to our present system, and which
never had been had recourse to. But the fact was, they had
several distinct corps, which, although said to be governed
on different principles, still kept up this practice. They had
the cavalry and infantry of the line, the two scientific corps,
and the Indian army, all of which were seniority corps, but
with this difference, that in the Queen's service the system
was accelerated by purchase, and in the Indian army it was
seniority only. Ina, the man who stood next to a death
vacancy got it, and the first man got the first chance of pur-
chase. Still it was seniority, but seniority modified or ac-
celerated by purchase. But there was no subject so much
overlaid with arguments which were not tenable, and with
statements of gross exaggeration, as was this question of
purchase. He had been sorry to hear the hon. and gallant
member for Westminster making such extravagant asser-
tions against the system. (Hear.) Ho was not sure that his
gallant kinsman opposite had paid attention to one of the
statements of the hon. and gallant member, viz., that the
loss of horses by the cavalry in the Russian war was owing
to purchase, whilst the immunity of the artillery horses
must be set down to the absence of purchase in that corps.
(A laugh.) On the other hand, they had been told that pur-
chase won the battle of Waterloo, and it was confidently
asserted that the spirit of our army was derived solely from
this artificial system. But the gallant member forWestrnir-
ster went further in an opposite direction, for he said that
not only was purchase incompatible with education, but
that money and education were perfectly antagonistic.
That was a great social, moral, and educational dicovery,
but it was one he must say he could not bow to. (Hear,
hear.) He, on the contrary, should be inclined to say that
poverty and ignorance went together, inasmuch -as that
education must cost money, and that money was most ,

adat•,..