the army—the non-commissioned officers and private
soldiers, between whom and the commissioned officers
a gulf was fixed which it was difficult for the former to
pass. The general fact was notorious that the principle
of the Horse Guards was not to hold out to the private
soldier any hope that merit would receive the honour of
promotion to the rank of a commissioned officer. Since
the 1st of October last 521 commissions in the army had
been filled up by the Horse Guards, of which 150 had
been obtained by purchase, and 371 had been given
away; and of this number 266 had been given to
"gents," 39 to officers of the militia, and 66 to sergeants
promoted from the ranks. If this was the principle
followed, he asked the house to consider whether it was
just; whether it was not expedient to introduce a
change in the system; and whether such a change would
not beneficially affect the recruiting of the army, its
intelligence, its morality, and its military efficiency.
The change could be made at the present time, which
was peculiarly favourable for it, and it could be effected
without injustice to purchasers. His objection to what
had been done already was, that it had not been done
on any system, but as a matter of pure favour. It had
been said that non-commissioned officers did not like
to be promoted; no doubt, if only one sergeant in a
regiment was advanced; but that was the very reason
why he asked that the change should be systematic,
whereby we should promote the efficiency of our army
and do justice to brave men.—Mr. F. PEEL observed
that the system under which commissions were obtained
in the army by purchase might be, as Lord Goderich
had represented, faulty in principle and defective in
theory; but it could not in truth be said that in its
actual working it had operated injuriously to the interest
of the country or to the discredit of the English army.
Lord Goderich had failed to show in what way the
system was unjust to the private soldier, and how it
impeded the disposition to enlist in our service. His
(Mr. Peel's) opinion was that, if the advancement of
the private soldier to commissions was to be systematic
the system now prevailing must give way; the two
could not co-exist; so that the question affected the
whole system of advancement by purchase in the army.
Mr. Peel explained the system as it now existed and
the principle upon which commissions were given to
non-commissioned officers, pointing out the advantages
incidental to the sale and purchase of commissions
in comparison with a system of advancement by
seniority; he thought the house should hesitate
before it assented to the address.—Lord LOVAINE
opposed the motion, considering that Lord Goderich
had advanced no reason that would justify a change of
system, though he admitted that the present system was
not perfect.—Mr. OTWAY, after replying to Lord
Lovaine, argued that the present system acted injuriously
to the private soldier, because it rendered the nominal
boon of a commission no boon at all.—Colonel SIBTHORP
objected to a change of system, wishing to leave "well"
alone.—Mr. Warner spoke in favour of the motion, as
well as Captain SCOBELL, who characterised the
purchasing of promotions in the army as a shopkeeping
mode of getting on in a profession.—Sir J. WALSH
contended that our regimental system, as it was, worked
well; that it had been tried, and for the last half
century had shown an indisputable superiority over
that of every other nation in Europe.—Lord SEYMOUR
observed that the object of Lord Goderich, was, that
vacancies should be given almost invariably to privates
in the army. The effects of this would be, that ensigns
would be, not young officers, but old ones, and whereas
it was desirable that young men should be brought into
the army who had passed good examinations, a well-
instructed class of officers could not be expected from
the ranks. Then, how could merit be discovered in
time of peace? Unless we had seniority, we should
have favouritism if purchase were prohibited, which did
not necessarily exclude good qualification. He objected
to the motion because it trifled with the whole question
and misled the house, for the opponents of the system of
purchase had not suggested any substitute.—Mr. J. BALL
denied that Lord Goderich proposed that the great
majority of the commissioned officers should be made up
from the ranks; his proposition was, that an honourable
career should be opened to private soldiers by affording
them some certain prospect of promotion.—Lord ELCHO
said, there appeared to him no reasonable objection to
the former part of the motion, except that it was
unnecessary; for the moment chosen for it was when
nearly one hundred commissions had been given to
non-commissioned officers. With regard to the latter
part of the motion, he could not agree that the system
was injurious to the public service and unjust to the
private soldier, and he objected further that to call upon
the house to affirm an abstract proposition might
embarrass it, and likewise cause disappointment. He
defended the practical result of the present system, and
attributed the outcry raised against it to the feeling out
of doors on the subject of the occurrences in the Crimea.
—Sir DE LACY EVANS (who was received;with loud
cheers from both sides of the house) condemned the
present system as a plan for facilitating favouritism, which
ought no longer to be tolerated. He did not complain
of the aristocracy and the gentry being in the army; he
wished to see them there in greater numbers than the
commonalty; but then the system of promotion by
purchase advanced the former class to the disadvantage
of the latter. It was almost impossible for the sons of
gentry to rise in the army. "Look," said Sir De Lacy,
"at my own position. We are beaten by time. We
are kept back until we are worn out. Those who have
more friends get up to the higher ranks of the army,
but if there is a question of selecting some one for the
command of a corps, or an army, the answer is, 'Oh!
such a man is not of such a class' and 'Don't
talk to us of him.' When the hon. gentleman tells us
that 50 or 100 commissions were appointed to the army
in the Crimea, and when he impresses this upon us as a
great economy, that by the sale of these 50 or 100
commissions all ulterior expense to the country will be
avoided, I really think he is putting the question on a
very low and inferior ground, and takes in truth a most
discreditable view of the subject. Because men have
£400 or £500 are they to be put over the heads of all those
non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, and
especially those non-commissioned officers who are
bearing with exemplary patience and fortitude, those
dangers, toils, and difficulties in the Crimea? Are all
these men to be set aside because £50,000 can be made
of it? This is false economy altogether. If this be a
good thing, you are bound to carry it out in all
institutions.You have no alternative. We are, however,
gradually approaching an amelioration of the system,
notwithstanding; for I find it laid down that, at all
events, officers of the army must be gentry. There was a
time when it was contended that they must be all nobility.
There have been good officers of all classes. Some of
the armies on the continent require their officers to
have ten or twelve quarterings of nobility. Princes have
also become great officers, nobles have become great
officers, and so have the gentry; but let us compare the
number of great officers which have arisen in countries
where the highest classes have obtained the highest
commands, with the number of great officers which
have appeared in other countries—for instance, at the
period of revolutions, when all classes have had a  free
scope for the development of their talents. You have
fifty in one case to one in the other. In France a number
of great officers arose at the time of the revolution,
but it so happened that we had one who was superior
to them all—but that had nothing to do with the
question. Compare the number, then, when there was
a free scope given to talent. In the time of Louis XIV.,
there were great commanders, no doubt, but we had a
greater commander than all his. Our own revolution was
political rather than military, but still there was a gentleman
of great power and position, Mr. Oliver Cromwell.
Sir De Lacy continued by reminding the house that
education alone was not sufficient to make an officer,
and that the system of examination which was now so
much relied on would, in many cases, prove an utter
delusion. But even in matters of education the mass of
the population had made wonderful advances. The
army which he had in Spain some twenty years ago,
collected under the most unfavourable circumstances,
showed a far higher degree of morality than the Duke
of Wellington's army in the Peninsular war; while, as