The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-31 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JULY 31,1858.

The House of Lords have resolved to insist upon one of their amend-
ments to the Government of India Bill. This amendment relates to the
nom'nation of gentlemen to commissions in the scientific branches of the
only. The House of Commons had enacted that these appointments
should be given in strict submission to the order in which candidates passed
their examination. Lord DERBY considers, very justly, that this resolution
is a violation of the Royal Prerogative, to which the distribution of military
patronage belongs unconditionally. On this purely constitutional ground,
therefore, he has advised their Lordships to adhere to their amendment.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH goes further. Ile objects to the abstract principle of
competitive examinations, and, as far as we can recollect., upon somewhat
novel grounds. His opinion is that as soon as this system is fully estab-
lished, "cramming" colleges and private "grinders" or "coaches" will
spring up, whose instructions will be so well worth receiving as to enable
them to charge terms far beyond the reach of clergymen, half-pay
officers, and the poorer class of gentry generally, from whose families the
best style of Indian officers is now obtained. We think it possible, how-
ever, that on this particular point his Lordship's apprehensions may be
overcharged. All these sorts of things have a tendency to find their own
level. And the wealthy tradesman whom his Lordship expects to oust
the poor gentleman will scarcely, perhaps, think a commission in the
Indian army worth paying such an extravagant price for, in the shape of
education, as to preclude all people of moderate means from competition.
Independently of which argument the probability is, that Indian depart-
ments would be established in our leading public schools on the same
terms as the other branches of the institution. There is, indeed, one
potent reason, for the sake of which we could desire that the system of
competition may be kept within due limits. It has been
urged, and repeatedly, by the advocates of unrestricted com-
petition that there is no reason why a man should make the
worse soldier because he knows something of books too—that there
is no reason why a man should be worse in the practice, because he is ac-
quainted with the theory, of warfare. Now this is just one of those pretty
plausible statements which it is exceedingly unpopular to combat. In this
age of eilightenment and progress and Mr. 13UCKLE, even to hint that
there Ote,,aorne subjects in which intellectual proficiency cannot carry
everything before it, is rank heresy. Yet what does the every-day expe-
rience of any man of ordinary powers of observation prove to him ? This
much, at all events—that the power of acquiring literary knowledge, and
the power of influencing our fellow-men in action, are so seldom found
together that to propose their union as the test of fitness for any-
thing whatever is an almost impracticable idea. Then conies the question
which of the two is to be sacrificed; and as a candidate cannot very well
describe on paper how he would behave under fire, it is pretty clear that
his fitness for this emergency will never be taken into consideration at all.
This has been our ollection all along to the competitive system. A dis-
criminative examination may probably answer better.