Parliamentary Intelligence.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XIV, 3 November 1855, Page 3

Parliamentary Intelligence.

The London Morning Advertiser says Mr. Roebuck is about to bring forward a motion tantamount to a direct vote of censure on Government in relation to the war with Russia. It is worded with the greatest skill, so that it will be difficult for Conservatives or Liberals to abstain from voting for it. Mr. Disraeli is stated to have guaranteed the support of his party. The motion will be chiefly directed at the condemnation of the Aberdeen administration, of which, however, nearly all the present ministers were members. The Advertiser further asserts that the motion will, in a great measure, owe its existence to Prince Albert's speech at the Trinity House. REBASTOPOL INQUIRY COMMITTEE.

At the meeting cf the House of Commons, on the 18th June, Mr. Roebuck brought up the report of the committee on the army before Sebastopol, and it "was read by the Clerk at the table amidst the deepest silence. It was for the most part an historical narrative of the management of tho war in tho several departments at homty and in all of which is described a great want of system and equal mismanagement. It further stated circumstances which showed great neglect •on the part of nearly the whole of the authorities at tho seat of war. Tho report went on to acknowledge tho exertions made by private persons to relieve the distresses at the hospitals at Scutari. Having stated that the conduct of the administration at home had been the chief cause of the calamities which had occurred, it concluded by bearing testimony to the admirable manner in which the army had home its manifold sufferugs. The reading of this important document occupied the Clerk exactly one hour and a-half. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM.— Mr. LAYARD'S MOTION.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Layard's motion respecting anministrative reform, was then resumed by Lord Goderich, who, at some length, supported the original motion. Mr. F. Pebli followed, and referring to Mr. Layard's speech on Friday, replied to all the cases of alleged favouritism at the Horse Guards as the way of military promotion. As to the motion he considered that it came too late, and that it exaggerated altogether the state of public feeling ; he should therefore vote again&t it. Mr. Drttmmond disagreed with every proposition advanced by Mr. Layard in this motion. The hon. gentleman assumed that his opinion was to guide all the world ; but as he had not proved a single assertion out of the whole four which constituted his resolution, it was not very likely that his opinion would have much weight, notwithstanding the proceedings in Drury Lane and the City of London. Ho ridiculed tho phrase of administrative reform, and said that those who used it could not feel what it meant. For these and other reasons he should vote against the motion. The amendment, too, was itself quite as wide of tho mark. Mr. J. Macoreoor supported the motion. Colonel Lindsay entered into some explanations with regard to the case of Lord Eustace Cecil and other officers, in answer to Mr. Layard. Mr. J. G\ PuiLiisiOßE disapproved of competition as a rule of promotion in tho oivil service. He did not, however, object to examination ; but he should vote against Mr. Layard's motion, because it was neither definite nor satisfactory. •Mr. Disraeli stated what Lord Derby's Government had done in tho way of administrative reform in the Irish offices and in the customs, and mentioned that it was their intention to have brought the whole subject before Parliament, with the view of bringing every department in tho State into a more efficient condition. This course was one which should have preceded all others at this time; but what Lord Derby's Government had done, and what they proposed to do, showed that the phrase " administrative reform" was at least a definite expression. That was ft measure of administrative reform of which he had himself, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, given notice, by which the whole revenue of the country was paid into the exchequer without deducting the expenses. Great changes in the civil administration were necessary. Admissions should be the result of fitness properly tested, and its rewards of a higher scale, wliile the great offices should be tho reward of able servants cducatet^for the purpose. These changes lie had advocated mqre than three years ago, and if they had been adopted many calamities might have been avoided ; but the first step should be to obtain from the highest authority a clear and distinct explanation of the means to improve and reward the civil service, and for this purpose he suggested a royal commission of practical men, which indeed Lord Derby's government were prepared to issue. He could not agree with Mr. Layard's motion, because our disasters were not owing to the civil service, but to an incapable Government. The amendment of Sir E. B. Ljtton actually embodied that which ought to be the decision of the house on this question. He was told that the Government meant to adopt this amendment ; if they did, they ought to act upon it sincerely, and to appoint the royal commission to inquire into the public offices, and to pass acts of Parliament to carry out their recommendations. Let this be done, and • the country would derive great benefit from tho administrative reform ; but, after all, he doubted whether Government were sincere in their desire to improv« and encourage tho civil service, seeing the last three appointments they made. Lord Palmebstojj commenced by saying there was not one word of truth in what Mr. Layard had stated of him at the Drury-lane meeting, and he wondered that a blush had not come over the honourable member when he was making charges which his conscience must have told him were utterly false. He denied that the present Government was constituted upon family principles ; and, starting from this point, he •went through the allegations of Mr. Layard, denying them altogether so far as they proceeded upon the assumption that merit was not rewarded in the public service. Alluding to Mr. Disraeli's remarks, he Baid the present Government had actually carried out all Lord Derby's Government only intended to do. Having stated his objections to Mr. Layard's motion, he said, in answer to Mr. Disraeli, that Government sincerely accepted the amendment ; in fact, it was their intention, as well as their duty, to make the civil establishments as efficient as possible. Mr. Lindsay said, as he had some important statements to make, which would show a great deal of mal-admiuistration, he should move for an adjournment of the debate. Admiral BEBKELEYhad waited to tell the honourable member that his statements at Drury-lane were not founded on truth. After a few words from Mr. Otway the house divided, when there appeared For the adjournment . . 83 Against 335—253 Mr. LayabA replied, and expressed his regret that an opportunity had not been afforded to Mr. Lindsay to state the charges of mal-administration, particularly after the unparliamentary denials of them by Admiral Berkeley. The house divided on tho question. For Mr. Layard's motion . . 46 Against . . - . . . 359—313 The motion was consequently lost. On the motion of Mr. Liicdsay, a debate on the amendment was adjourned till Thursday. Other orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at 2.27, a.m. Last night (June 18) the House of Commons had its attention directed to two topics of more than ordinary interest, in connection with the war. The Report of the Sebastopol Committee was read amid the deepest silence, enhancing for an hour and a half the attention of the house. A despatch from Admiral Dundas waß also read, stating the particulars of the recent attack upon tho crew of the Cossack's boat, while engaged in landing Finnish prisoners at Hango. We forbear describing the unfortunate occurrence, as the statement of Admiral Dundas will be found in our report of last night's sitting. If the case is as described, language is wanting to characterize its barbarity. We trust, however, for the honour of humanitr, that the circumstance?, when fully known,

will be found to furnish some palliation for what would else be foully atrocious. The fact that the evidence on which Admiral Dundas necessarily relied was given by one individual, who had remained in the boat, furnishes a shadow of hope that such was the case. The Russian Government cannot leave this matter unexplained; their character, not for justice, but for common humanity, is staked by it; and we shall await with no ordinary interest the steps they may deem it imperative to take.