The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-16 00:00:00

JUNE 16, 1855.

the highest offices were shut out from them, the
subordinate offices required no talent, and the official
had no incentive to improve such talent as he had.
He defended the report, drawn up by himself and
Sir C. Trevelyan, from the objections that it was
based on a crotchet of competition, and saying that
a system of fixed tests would end by serving as an
(muse for bad appointments. Nothing could be
done till patronage was abolished, and promotion by
merit substituted. He objected likewise to the ge-
wral scale of remuneration in the civil service to the
w irking men as utterly inadequate, contending that
ving the proper men their proper work, and paying
t lem accordingly, would effect a great saving in
the end.

Lord L. GOWER, though a friend to Administrative
Reform, would not support the motion, believing
that there was great exaggeration in the evils com-
plained of.
Mr. PEACOCK opposed the motion, believing
what mischief existed was attributable to the Whigs.
Mr. GLADSTONE, so far from being concerned at
the state of the nation, thought that, under circum-
stances of great difficulty, they had fully maintained
the honour of the country. The promoters of Ad-
ministrative Reform seemed to have for their object
to throw all blame upon the aristocracy, against
which he vehemently protested. He objected to
vague accusations, and said that the house would
not entertain motions without a definite object,
which it was prepared to redeem. Referring to Mr.
Layard's speech, he could not see how the house
could institute the searching inquiry into our
military administration which he seemed to
demand, and passed a warm eulogium on
Lord Hardinge, and instanced cases in which
the Commander-in Chief had administered his
patronage in a manner free from all party and
family interests. It was likewise intended to throw
open the artillery appointments to competitors—
wh ch he approved in itself—and likewise as an ex-
periment to show how far we might go. Much had
lently been done of late years in the reform of our
o times, and the Government of Lord Aberdeen had
limn prepared with a measure surrendering the
extra patronage of the civil service in first appoint-
ments—a measure which would have been more
e oily adopted by that aristocratic Cabinet, than by
tle democratic House of Commons. He defended
Vie order in council as—although imperfect—still
good as far as it went, and preparing the way for
farther improvements, and he trusted that under it
we might relax the system of nomination. He
a ;reed with Mr. Layard that civil appointments
should be thrown entirely open. Promotion by
merit was distrusted as a cloak for jobbing, and in
consequence a low tone pervaded the public service.
The great difficulty lay in introducing a different
feeling with regard to that principle. The first step
wag to introduce men by merit, to appoint the best
men by the best examination, altering thereby the
basis of the system, and preparing the way for a
general rule of promotion by merit. He explained
the circumstance of the superanuation tax, which had
been adopted by the Government of Lord Grey instead
of a reduction of salaries. He warned the house against
passing from extremes of parsimony to that of ex-
t-avagance, and he believed that if the pay of the
civil servants were properly adjusted it would be
a nply sufficient. He did not believe that the system
o° patronage added strength to any Government, and
ipporting his belief by the weakness of all execu-
tive governments of late years. The system was one
of unmixed evil, especially at the first appointment,
where it was irresponsible ; to get rid of it would
procure fewer and better servants, do much for
public education, advance economy, and the public
virtue of the country. Although he could not sup-
port the motion, he agreed in the spirit of what Mr.
Layard ha I said on the diploma.ic and civil services,
and wished him God speed in his attempts to reform
t iem.
Sir E. B. LYTTON said that converting the objec-
tions to our civil service into inflammatory declama-
tions was a grave misfortune. The outcry com-
m -need at the accession of the present Ministry, en-
c iuraged by the conduct of Lord John Russell with
r .gard t the Duke of Newcastle, and was mainly
due to the disappointment felt by the country in the
conduct of Lord Palmerston, whose proceedings he
arraigned as undecided, injudicious, and trifling. It
was after that disappointment that the country de-
clared that it could not longer have confidence in
Ministries, and take the question into its own
hands. The Government then introduced a few stale
reforms, leaving untouched the departments which
had most broken down, and which utterly failed to
satisfy any one. The feeling thus aroused was dan-
gerous to the fundamental principle of representa-
tive government, for what else was the cry against
the influenc2 of party? The Whigs had, without
doubt, since their accession to office, organised a
colossal system of family patronage, and they were
how, in the hour of trial, reaping the fruits of their
system, and were responsible for having excited a
danger which threatened the foundation of society,

THE PRESS.

Coming to Administrative Reform, he reviewed the
various schemes proposed, observed that the objects
were to obtain the widest range of candidates, and
secure the greatest amount of talent, neither of
which was secured by the order in council. He
denounced dealing with the subject in a desultory
way, leaving public servants doubtful of their pros-
pects, and urging that whatever reforms were
adopted, they should be applied simultaneously to
all the departments. It was, he urged, the duty of
the Government to comedown with a comprehensive
measure, sufficient to satisfy the people. He brought
forward his amendment in order to free the question
from dangerous adulterations and insinuations
against the honour of the house, on which he passed
a warm eulogium. He moved "the recommendation
to her Majesty of a careful revision of our various
official establishments, with a view to simplify and
facilitate the transaction of public business, and, by
instituting judicious tests of merit, as well as by
removing obstructions to its fair promotion and legi-
timate rewards, to secure to the service of the State
the largest available proportion of the energy
and intelligence for which the people of this country
are distinguished."
Mr. LABOUCHERE explained the circumstances of
the appointment of Mr. Fonblanque, which had been
criticised in the debate.

The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER said that the
motion was one of want of confidence in the Govern-
ment ; it was the second vote of the kind within a
fortnight; and objected to such a course as destroy.
ing the free action of the Executive. Referring to
the question, he said that in all popular Govern-
ments appoitments must be made from party con-
siderations. The aristocratic element of our Go-
vernment was, at least, equally prevalent at the end
of the last century as at present. Routine was
necessary to the transaction of business. Objecting,
therefore, to the terms of Mr. Layard's motion, he
expressed his adhesion to the amendment of Sir
BULWER LYTTON, and detected the movements of the
Government in the direction of reform. _ _

Lord GODERICH moved the adjournment of the
debate, which was carried by 240 to 29.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of
and the house adjourned.