regarded the army now in the Crimea, there was
hardly anything like a crime committed. He admitted
that the system ought to be changed gradually, but he
hoped the government would take the matter up with
an earnest desire to put the service upon a proper
footing. It did not, indeed, matter much in time of
peace what the system was, but it was in time of war
that the evil was felt, and he had no hesitation in
saying that not only had campaigns been unluckily
commenced, but that wars had been indefinitely
prolonged, through the incapacity of the generals selected.
With regard to Sergeant Sullivan, he held that the
authorities had committed a gross mistake in the
matter. As a general of division, and still more as
commanding on the spot, he held that he was entitled
to have his recommendation attended to, especially as
Sullivan was of excellent character, and had
distinguished himself before at the battle of Alma. He held
that in this case a direct professional affront—un-
intentional he was sure—had been put upon himself.—Mr. S.
HERBERT observed that the debate had travelled out of
the motion. The house had been discussing, not the
case of private soldiers, but what should be the rule of
promotion in the army. He thought it was an
advantage that non-commissioned officers should be
promoted, but not because they were non-commissioned
officers. The only rational rule for promoting any
man was detur digniori. Then the question was, were
we to have a strong educational test for officers, or to
take men because they were privates or non-
commissioned officers, and dispense with all examination?
This consideration must, for a time at least, limit the
admission of non-commissioned officers to commissions.
He acknowledged that it was for the advantage of the
army that there should be pretty frequent admissions
from the ranks; but he objected to laying down a fixed
rule which would lead to a system of class promotion.
Then was promotion to be by purchase, seniority, or
merit? He admitted that much might be said against
purchase; but serious inconveniences would attend its
abolition. Seniority, as a rule, was objected to and
was objectionable, and selections according to merit
was liable to abuse. So that when the question
of purchase was looked at it must be regarded with
reference to what was to be substituted for it.
He contrasted the military system of this country with
the system of France and of Russia, and argued
that we could not lay down a fixed rule as to the
number of men to be promoted from the rank; so that
it was a question, not of principle, but of degree. He
was confident that the increase in the number of these
promotions would go on, and that the increased
education of the army would justify its continuance;
but he asked the house not to sanction indiscriminate
promotion.—Lord PALMERSTON said it was impossible
to deny that this subject was one of great importance
and of great interest—important as it regarded one of
the great institutions of the country in which rested its
defence, its dignity, and honour; interesting because it
concerned all classes of the community. One of the
arguments of Lord Goderich was that the present
system discouraged recruiting for the army; but this
was not the fact; recruiting never went on so
successfully.The question of the purchase and sale of
commissions was surrounded with difficulties. If we were
forming our army for the first time, no man would
think of making commissions matter of sale, but it was
another thing to deal with a system which had long
existed; for he believed that this was the remnant of
an ancient system not peculiar to the army. Abstractedly,
it was an evil; but, as in many other instances, it
was not unaccompanied by certain countervailing
advantages. The change involved considerations of
great magnitude, as well as great expense to the
country. Therefore he was not prepared to say that
the government could consent to this sort of off-hand
resolution. It was a great mistake to suppose that by
the purchase and sale of commissions they were put
up to auction and sold to the highest bidder. The
commander-in-chief exercised the same discretion in
selecting men permitted to purchase commissions as he
did when they were given without purchase. With
respect to the promotion of non-commissioned officers,
he thought the line pursued by Mr. S. Herbert ought to
be, and it would continue to be, followed. He thought
it was desirable to hold out to privates and non-
commissioned officers that good conduct and bravery would
earn the reward of a commission, and he was satisfied
that by increased education there would always be a
considerable number of sergeants fitted to receive
commissions. This being the case, he hoped Lord Goderich
would not divide the house, which might give an
erroneous impression to the public that on the main
principle there was a difference of sentiment, but would
leave it to the government to follow out the course
already adopted.—Lord GODERICH declined to withdraw
his motion, which, upon a division, was negatived
by 158 to 114.

On Friday, March 2, Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to
a question from Mr. French, stated that government had
received despatches announcing the Death of the
Emperor of Russia.

Replying to Mr. Dundas, Sir G. GREY said that the
further progress of Lord J. Russell's Education Bill had
been postponed until after the Easter recess.

Mr. Roebuck moved a resolution authorising the
Sebastopol Inquiry Committee to conduct its Investigations
in Secret, and argued in favour of that mode of
proceeding.—The relative advantages of an open or
secret investigation were discussed at considerable
length. Ultimately Mr. Roebuck yielded to the evident
wish of the house, and withdrew his motion for a
secret investigation, recapitulating at the same time the
reasons which led him to believe that a close committee
would have been the best.

The house then went into committee of supply, the
remaining votes of the series on the Army Estimates
were agreed to, after a miscellaneous discussion. The
house then resumed.

The Exchequer Bills (£17,183,000) Bill went through
committee.

Lord PALMERSTON obtained leave to bring in a bill
enabling a Third Secretary and Under-Secretary of
State to sit in the House of Commons. The bill was
brought in, and read a first time.

On Monday, March 5, Mr. RICH, on the order for
going into committee of supply, moved a resolution,
that it is expedient that measures be taken for
Promoting the Efficiency of our Military Academies. He
insisted upon the necessity of a reform in the education
of officers in the army, to which end, incentives, he
said, were wanting, owing to the manner in which
promotion was obtained in the army, by means of
interest at the Horse Guards, and he adduced instances
in which appointments to the staff had been made
without reference to qualification or length of service.
A large proportion of the persons who received
commissions were, he argued, utterly destitute of
professional education. The remedy was to require all
candidates for commissions in the army to undergo
examinations as in the navy, and to work out the
institutions for preparing officers for regimental and staff
appointments in the spirit in which they were originally
established.—Mr. F. PEEL said there could not be two
opinions as to the general value of education to military
officers. The more the facilities for learning their
profession were multiplied, the more their minds would be
disciplined, their understandings cultivated, and their
resources increased. But he would not have the
education of too high a character, since by adopting a
high standard the services of many valuable officers
would be lost. He admitted that the institutions for
military education in this country were scanty, and
that it was a defect in the present system that officers
appointed to the staff were often acquainted with only
regimental duties. The government, he said, was
sensible of the importance of the question, and were
desirous of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.—Colonel
DUNNE contrasted the course of education requisite for
officers in the French army before they were considered
fit for staff appointments with the negligent and
inefficient system pursued in the English service. In our
army, he contended, there was no security that the
staff officers should be either well-educated or
sufficiently trained for the performance of their important
duties.—Lord PALMERSTON observed that great advantage