since 1848, and have been followed or accompanied by
searching progressive reforms, that have rendered the
departments much more efficient, and that will still be
carried on. He intimated, that if Mr. Layard's resolution
were carried, ministers, regarding it as a vote of
want of confidence, would retire; but that, construing
Sir Edward Lytton's amendment by the simple meaning
of its words, be should have no difficulty in accepting it.
—Lord GODERICH moved that the debate be adjourned
till Monday; which was carried by 240 to 29.

On Monday, June 18, the Report of the Sebastopol
Inquiry Committee was brought up by Mr. Roebuck,
and read by the clerk at the table.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Layard's resolution
respecting Administrative Reform, was then resumed.
Lord GODERICH insisted upon the necessity of reform
in various branches of the civil and military services,
especially with regard to the mode in which appointments
were made, and promotions distributed. He regretted
that the government should have interpreted the
resolution into a want of confidence, believing that they
might, without disparagement to the character and
dignity of the cabinet, have accepted the conclusion it
presented, and cordially concurred in giving it a practical
effect. The public now demanded administrative
reform as the crown and complement of the representative
and commercial reforms already accomplished.
With the house itself lay, to a great extent, the duty of
taking the initiative in performing this work, for the
sake of which all interests of persons, parties, or classes,
should be at once surrendered.—Mr. DISRAELI
recapitulated the steps which the government whereof
he had been a member had attempted or designed
for the improvement of different departments of the
public service. The result of various experiments
in this direction had brought him to the conclusion
that efficiency and economy in every branch of
administration were correlative terms. His labours and
intentions at that period entitled him to assume the
character of a veteran administrative reformer.
Adverting to some departmental reforms in the Customs,
the Treasury, and elsewhere, Mr. Disraeli contended
that any general measure ought to have been prefaced
by a formal investigation and report upon the subject
by a Royal Commission. He then defined the
principles on which the civil service should, in his opinion,
be re-organised. Admission to the service ought to
be regulated, not by interest, but fitness; the exertions
of efficient functionaries ought to be better remunerated
than at present; and the public service ought to
be considered a profession where the loftiest prizes
were placed within the reach of every employé who
displayed energy and talent. With the resolution
proposed by Mr. Layard he could not agree, being unable
to assign to the faults of an administrative system the
failures and disasters which he believed to be attributable
entirely to an incapable and divided government.
He then explained the reasons which induced him to
approve of the amendment brought forward by Sir E.
B. Lytton, as indicating a sound and practical system of
reform. The ministry, he observed, had adopted the
amendment, but had hitherto neglected every
opportunity for accomplishing the object to which they
now pledged their adherence.—Lord PALMERSTON
alluded to some expressions attributed to Mr. Layard
at the late meeting in Drury-lane, and repudiated the
accusation of having jested on the sufferings, or vilified
the character of the people of England. The charge
against the present administrative system was, that fit
men were not chosen for high places in different
departments. With respect to the highest class, the
members of the cabinet itself, he declared that no family
ties or narrow considerations had presided at their
appointment, his only motive in selecting colleagues being
to surround himself with men of the highest talent
and character. Passing on to other departments, the
noble lord contended that the military system had been
sufficiently vindicated by Mr. Peel; and, with respect
to the diplomatic service, remarked that, if the highest
functionaries were noblemen, it was because their titles
were won by a long and able performance of their
important duties. In the consular establishment, also, he
asserted, that the higher members had been almost,
without exception, promoted on account of merit, from
the lower grades of the service. Into the civil service,
generally, a system of examination had already been
introduced, so as to secure a proper degree of education
and capacity among the candidates admitted to office.
But, on the whole, he feared that neither in amount of
pay, rapidity of promotion, nor ultimate prospect of
affluence, could the public service hold out temptations
sufficient to attract men of the highest range of ability
from the independent channels of professional or
commercial exertion. Two opposite recommendations had
been urged on different sides, on the subject of
promotion in the public service. One party insisted that
for every important office the best man should be
selected, wherever he could be found; the other laid
down the rule that such prizes must be given only to
the best deserving of those who were already public
servants. Neither principle, he argued, was altogether
right. The government had followed one course or the
other, according to circumstances, and in so doing upon
some recent occasions had, he believed, acted rightly,
although their appointments had been censured on both
hands. Adverting to the resolution before them Lord
Palmerston rebutted the assertion that national disasters
were to be apprehended, or that national character
had suffered discredit. On the contrary, the renown of
the country never stood higher, nor were its prospects
ever more bright. In accepting the amendment he
declared that the government endorsed with perfect
sincerity the pledge it conveyed for carrying out, in the
best and readiest manner that could be found possible,
the principle of administrative reform. After a motion
for the adjournment of the debate had been negatived
the house divided on Mr. Layard's resolution, when it
was rejected by 359 against 46.—The amendment of Sir
E. B. Lytton was then put as a substantive motion, but
the discussion was adjourned, on the motion of Mr.
Lindsay, to Thursday next.

On Tuesday, June 19, the mid-day sitting was
occupied in the discussion of the Tenants' Improvement
Compensation (Ireland) Bill. Considerable opposition
and two divisions were interposed on the motion for
going into committee on the bill, but finally the house
went into committee and passed a few clauses of the
measure.

In the evening sitting, on the motion of Mr. MACKINNON
the appointment of a select committee was sanctioned
"to inquire into the circumstances of the Expedition
to the Arctic Seas, commanded by Captain Maclure,
with the view of ascertaining whether any and what
reward may be due for the services rendered on that
occasion."

Mr. HEADLAM moved an address to the crown,
praying for such alterations in the rules of the military
service as might secure the Return of the Regulation
Value of Commissions purchased by Officers in the
Army who might Die or be Killed in Active Service
to the Relatives or Representatives of the Deceased,
with an accompanying assurance that any expenditure
incurred for such a purpose would be made good by the
house. The repayment contemplated by his motion
was advocated by him as being an act of mere justice, as
well as a suggestion of expediency, especially in time of
war.—Mr. PEEL objected to the form of the proposed
resolution, arguing that it introduced a general principle
under the cover of a particular case. If the purchase
money of commissions were returned to the heirs of
officers killed in the Russian war, it would be impossible
to refuse a similar restitution to the representatives of
those who might die in services of any description.
Declaring himself unable to concede this point in
extenso, he was obliged to oppose the motion before the
house. Some compensation was, he remarked, already
granted to the relatives of deceased officers in the shape
of pensions.—The motion was supported by Col.
Dunne, Lord A. Paget, Col. North, and Mr. Rice.—
Lord PALMERSTON urged that the proposition then
presented was connected with the wide and vexed
question respecting the purchase and sale of
commissions in the army, and could not expediently be
dealt with separately. He suggested that by way of
compromise an arrangement might be effected, allowing
the representatives of officers killed in action to elect