complete the reserves of marines and seamen for Her Majesty's navy."

Lord C. Paget said, considering the shortness of the time, very great progress had been made in obtaining first-class men. The whole number of the reserves, including coastguard, naval brigade, royal naval coast volunteers, and marines on shore, was 23,831, including officers. If the public, he observed, would only wait patiently, they would find the navy on a satisfactory footing. No exertion should be spared to get up the reserves to the required number as soon as possible. With respect to the Articles of War for the navy (the severity of which, in the opinion of Mr. Lindsay, deterred seamen from entering the Queen's service), a Bill, he said, would be introduced into the other House for modifying and improving them.

Sir C. Napier, after arguing that the deficiency of the reserves was greater than would appear from Lord C. Paget's statement, urged the keeping up of our navy at any cost, instead of expending money in coast fortifications, which would be quite useless.

Mr. Bentinck said, if the object of the motion was to assert that the Board of Admiralty had not done what was in their power to carry out the recommendations of the Manning Commission, he entirely concurred with it; but he did not lay the entire blame upon the Board; the real blame rested on that House. With regard to the coast fortifications, he agreed with Sir C. Napier that they would be a waste of money.

Mr. Whitbread briefly replied to Sir C. Napier, and after some re

marks by Admiral Duncombe and Mr. A. Smith, Mr. Lindsay's motion was negatived.

The system of promotion in the army, and the method of obtaining commissions by purchase, underwent some debate in the House of Commons on the 6th of March, upon the motion of Sir De Lacy Evans. The gallant officer moved an address to Her Majesty, praying that she would be pleased to order the gradual abolition, as soon as practicable, of the sale and purchase of commissions in the army (having due regard in doing so to existing rights), with the view of substituting, for the purchase system, promotion partly by selection, partly by seniority, grounded on war services of merit, length of colonial and home services, and attested professional fitness. In a speech of considerable length, he pointed out the evils of the purchase system, and discussed the arguments urged in its favour, reminding the House that he did not propose the sudden abolition of the system.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Rich, who said the question substantially was, whether merit or money should be the passport to rank in the army, and he asked the House whether, at the present time, it would say that it was desirable that promotion should be purchased by money. He urged various arguments against this practice.

Captain L. Vernon moved as an amendment, a Resolution, that "whereas the promotion in the seniority corps already existingviz., the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and Royal Marinesis of an unsatisfactory character, it is not desirable to extend the

seniority system to the whole of He argued that the seniority system was not so entirely one of unmixed good as the mover and seconder of the motion supposed, and he supported this argument by showing the results of the system in the corps he referred to, numbering 45,000 men, and in the Indian army, where promotion was so slack that the officers invented a purchase system of their own. As a proof that merit obtained promotion without purchase, he cited the case of Sir De Lacy Evans himself, who, in six months, by his meritorious services, had advanced from the rank of lieutenant to that of lieutenant-colonel, without the expense of one shilling, whereas, in a seniority corps, he would not have got beyond the rank of captain. Without deciding what was the best system of promotion in the army, he denounced the se niority system as the worst.

Colonel Dickson, in supporting the amendment, complained of the influence which the press exerted to the prejudice of the army, by publishing unfounded charges. He was quite aware, he said, that great abuses had crept in under the purchase system, but there was a vast difference between improvement and total destruction. If the purchase system was abolished, it would be impossible for a poor man to enter a cavalry regiment unless the pay was increased to a very large extent. Its abolition would cost the country a large sum, and the system would not fail to re-enter the army. Selection, so far from being a remedy, would, in his opinion, be the ruin of the British army, by extinguishing the esprit de corps, one of its leading features.

Sir F. Smith said, he did not see how selection and seniority

could be combined. What were to be the grounds of selection, and who was to exercise it? He recommended that things should be left as they were: the present system had produced the finest regiments in the world.

Captain Jervis thought that if promotion were to be abolished, the pay of the army must be increased, so as to induce men to enter it who could look to supporting themselves on their pay. In short, it was a question of money.

Colonel Lindsay, after noticing the case of an officer who had been passed over eighteen times, but who stated that, if there had been no purchase, he should have been longer in attaining his rank, expressed his belief that the system of purchase was most efficient, both for the army and the public good. A system of non-purchase did exist, however, to a considerable extent; but purchase was quite compatible with the principle of examination, and merit was a frequent ground of promotion. There was a control and a species of discipline attached to the purchase of commissions, under which our regimental system had never failed.

Colonel P. Herbert hoped the House would not be led away by the opinion of officers in foreign services. He had conversed with foreign officers, and had always found that they laboured under the misapprehension, that under our system of purchase commissions were put up to the highest bidders; but when they understood the system they admitted it was an admirable one. He wished, he said, to put the defence of the system, not on personal grounds, but on the ground of its efficiency, and on that of public economy.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Sidney Herbert) observed, that this question was a most difficult and complicated one. As an abstract proposition he thought seniority a bad ground of promotion; but the fact was, that different portions of the army had different principles of promotion. In the Queen's service, the principle was seniority, accelerated by purchase; in the Indian army it was seniority pure. This question was, he thought, overloaded with exaggeration and error. Nothing was more erroneous than to assume that a non-purchaser was a hard-working officer, well acquainted with his profession, and that the purchasing officer was unacquainted with his profession. Then he had heard the most sanguine expectations held out that, by the abolition of the purchase system, the army would get a superior class of men; on the other hand, it had been said it would deteriorate the army. He believed that both assumptions were utterly untrue; that if the present system was abolished it would not make the slightest difference in the class of persons entering the army. The Report of the Duke of Somerset's Commission, in his opinion, gave the fairest account of the advantages and disadvantages of the purchase system, and he stated the recommendations of that Commission for the modifications of the system. He urged the embarrassments incident to selection, besides the invidious character attached to the office; but, in considering the objections to a system of selection, he denied that, in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, it would be made an instrument of political influence, or be employed for purposes of favouritism. He confessed that

he viewed with apprehension and alarm the proposal for the entire abolition of purchase. Holding, as he did, that purchase in some shape and in some ranks was necessary, but that it might be abolished in the higher, limiting it to the rank of major, the principles laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission were those which the Government preferred, and it would be his duty, he said, to prepare a scheme to be laid before them and the military authorities founded upon those principles. He would not be driven from the point he had stated, where he could see his way, for the army was a machine too delicate to be played with.

Mr. Ellice was of opinion that the proposed scheme would only aggravate the evils complained of, and he advised the House—both those who desired the abolition of the purchase system and those who thought it should be maintained-not to assent to a proposition which was accompanied by many difficulties. He insisted that the power of selection in the higher ranks would open a door to partialities and favouritism; and he should like to see, he said, instead of this piece of patchwork, a

scheme that would settle the affairs of the whole army, that of India included.

Colonel North objected to the project of Mr. Herbert, which he thought would lead the way to the destruction of the existing system.

Lord Stanley said he was quite. aware that the abolition of purchase would be a work of great difficulty and vast expense, and no plan for effecting it had been proposed. The scheme proposed by Mr. Herbert was a compro

mise, and if the motion was pressed to a division he should vote against it.

The amendment having been withdrawn, the House divided upon Sir De Lacy Evans' motion, when there appearedFor the motion Against it..

Majority

59

. 213

154 The same subject was discussed in the House of Lords soon after wards upon the second reading of the Mutiny Bill, when Lord Panmure called the attention of the House to the present system of promotion in the army by the sale and purchase of commissions. He pointed out at some length its various advantages, and refuted the objections which had oftentimes been brought against it. The Report of the Commission was one which ought to have made the Government pause before they ventured upon a radical change, as six of the Commissioners were in favour of the Report, and four against it a majority hardly large enough to justify the Government in ignoring the opinions of the minority. The "selection" system, he considered, would be destructive of that harmony and good feeling which at present existed in the army, and would im pose on the Commander-in-Chief a most invidious task. In considering the financial view of the question, he asked whether lieu tenant-colonels who had purchased their commissions above the regulation price, if they applied for leave to sell out, were only to be allowed to receive the regulation price; because, if so, it was a decided fraud upon them, as they had bought their commissions upon a totally different understanding.

Lord de Grey and Ripon said the speech of Lord Panmure would have been very appropriate if it had been the intention of the Government entirely to abolish the purchase system. As, however, no such intention existed, the suspicions of Lord Panmure were quite unfounded. It was indispensable in the higher grades of the army in most cases to adopt the system of selection, and the new regulations only proposed to make the principle of selection compulsory instead of optional. He felt convinced that the adoption of this principle, approved as it was by the Commission, would not only increase the efficiency of the army, but remove one of the greatest scandals which at present attached to it.

Lord Lucan considered that the system of purchase had worked well, and believed that no regi ments in the world were equal to the British regiments. There might be more scientific officers in foreign armies, but there were none more loyal, more faithful, or more brave than the English officers. If the system of selection were to be adopted as the rule, it would give rise to much discontent and operate unjustly upon officers.

The Duke of Somerset thought it intolerable that the lives of men and the honour of the country should be intrusted to an inca pable officer, simply because he possessed money instead of brains, and because there was a dislike to interfere with the present system of promotion. The public interests imperatively demanded the substitution, in the higher military appointments, of the principle of promotion by selection for that of promotion by purchase.

Earl Grey contended that it

would be impossible, under a system of selection, to get rid of the influence of favour and interest. The Duke of Cambridge said he still retained the opinions he had expressed before the Royal Commission; but whatever decision the Government might arrive at, he should do his best to carry it out as frankly and fairly as possible. Some important facts and opinions, bearing on the subject of discipline in both services, were elicited during a short debate which arose in the House of Commons in regard to flogging in the Army and Navy, upon a motion made by Mr. W. Williams for a return of the number of cases of punishment that had taken place in 1859. Mr. Williams expatiated upon the cruelty of this practice, and dwelt upon the demoralizing and exasperating effects produced on the spectators, and upon its effect in deterring men from entering the services. Mr. Bristow seconded the motion, advocating the abolition of corporal punishment. Colonel North charged Mr. Williams with making inaccurate statements calculated to injure the character of absent officers. Alderman Salomons confirmed some of Mr. Williams's representations. Lord C. Paget said he did not object to the motion, provided that part were omitted which called for the names of the commanding officers in cases of flogging in the Navy. He said that efforts had been made to lessen the severity of this punishment, and it was intended soon to propose a reform of the Naval Criminal Code. [A Bill for the purpose was, in fact, afterwards brought in and passed.]

Mr. Buxton was perfectly persuaded that it would be the

soundest policy to get rid of the lash in the two services, which were made unpopular by it among the working classes. In order to show the inhumanity of the punishment, he read a description of a flogging by a sufferer, and pronounced it a brutal punishment, which could only be justified by a real and strong necessity, the onus being upon the advocates of the lash to prove the necessity. He was of opinion that discipline could be maintained as well without the lash as with it. In the best Continental armies it was unknown, and discipline was kept up in many of our regiments and many of our ships of, war without flogging.

Mr. S. Herbert pointed out the distinction between the composition of our army and that of Continental armies, which were raised by conscription from all classes. A very strong authority must be exercised over a body like our army, raised in so peculiar a manner, by a mode of punishment more rapid and summary than was applied to civilians. But flogging was a punishment not unknown to civil life, and he cited statutes in which flogging was the penalty for certain offences. He did not say that this was right, but it was an answer to the objection that a rule was applied to the soldier from which the civilian was exempt. Since the case at Woolwich, which he thought a bad one, corporal punishment had been, by a wise, just, and humane General Order of the Commander-in-Chief, restricted to a few offences; and he wished that it should be reduced to a minimum. He hoped the House and the country would see that they might safely leave this matter in hands well able to deal with it.