The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 185

its servants. Butfurther, the principle of that measure was
deliberately considered by both Houses of Parliament, and
embodied in an act of the Legislature, whereas the hon.
member now proposes to set the prerogative in motion,
without affording any opportunity to the other House of
Parliament, as there would be in the ordinary course of
proceeding, to reconsider the proposition. It is admitted
that the order in council lately issued by the Government
is a step in the right direction, and calculated to have be-
neficial results. I can give the most positive assuranee to
the house that in making these appointments, and in all
the successive steps taken under this measure, her Ma-
jesty's Government have acted with perfect good faith,
and with the sole view of rendering the new system as
efficient as possible. It seems to me that if the measure
is efficiently carried out, it will secure the possession of the
desired qualifications by the persons appointed. It
may not secure the best men out of a given number of
persons, but it will secure, as in the examinations
for degrees at the universities, that the person chosen shall
possess a certain amount of qualification. (Hear.) I will
state the result of the examinations which have already
taken place since the commissioners have been in office.
They have granted certificates to ten persons as clerks, and
to fifteen for subordinate situations—as tidewaiters and
the like ; and they have refused certificates to five persons
as clerks, and to four for subordinate situations. This re-
sult, in the course of only a few weeks, must, I think, sa-
tisfy the house that the examination is not a mere form,
but a substantial test of fitness for the duties of the place.
The order is drawn up intentionally so as to allow of consi-
derable latitude in its execution, and if hon. gentlemen will
refer to its terms they will see that it is competent for the
head of a department to send eight or ten names to the exa-
miners, with a request to them to select one or two of the
ablest, and then to appoint the persons thus selected, but it
does not go the length of throwing open without discussion
to the world the right of constituting themselves, without any
qualification, candidates for admission to the civil service.
Let it be recollected that the order was only issued at the
end of May, and has therefore scarcely been in operation for
six weeks. Under these circumstances, I will ask the house
whether they think it advisable, so soon after the issue of
the order in council, which cannot be denied to be a most
important security—more important in my opinion than
by any subsequent measure can be added—for the efficiency
of the public service—whether they think fit to address the
Crown to abolish this order and issue another founded on an
entirely different and novel principle. (Hear.) I will appeal
to them to allow at any rate a certain experience of the ef-
fects of this order to be gained, and to wait till another
session has arrived before any further change is made. The
present order in council proceeds on the basis of the exist-
ing method of the civil service, and attempts byregulations,
undoubtedly new in their nature, but consistent with those
already in force, to introduce ameliorations and improve-
ments. A change of this kind is fairly within the limits of
an order in council, and may with propriety be carried into
effect by the prerogative of the Crown. But when the
assent of the house is asked to a principle altogether new—
when it is proposed to disseise the Crown of so vast a num-
ber of appointments, and to give to the public a right they
never before enjoyed, introducing a system fundamentally
different from that which now exists, let me ask whether the
proper course is not for the hon. member to introduce a
bill embodying the change which he proposes, which may
be deliberately considered and examined by the house, in-
stead of calling upon it suddenly and unpreparedly to adopt
a resolution embodying a new principle, which may lead to
consequences such as cannot yet be fully foreseen ? (Hear.) I
could hardly collect from the hon. member's speech whether
he means that it should be open to every member of the
public to present himself as a candidate for these appoint-
ments ; but it is at least desirable that an important
motion of this kind should be free from verbal ambi-
guity. Upon the grounds I have stated I think the house
will be inclined to agree with me when I propose to
move the previous question. In the general spirit of the
motion I altogether agree, and I repudiate wholly the no-
tion of finality in the order of council which has beenlaid
on the table. The subject is new; the interest which the
public takes in it is likely to throw great light on it, and
to strengthen the hands of reformers. So far as it tends
to increase the efficieney of the civil service, I am friendly
to the principle ; but I hesitate in accepting the conclu-
sion embodied in it, and I hope the house will not at once
commit itself to a wholly unprecedented principle, and
will support the motion I now make, that the previous
question be put. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILKINSON said he thought the right hon. gen-
tleman had raised a great many giants for the purpose of
slaying them. When he talked of a literary examination,
he must say he had heard of no such thing being proposed.
It was not necessarily literary, but an examination for
qualification, let it be what it might. Again, as much was
said of competition, it ought to be recollected that there
were two kinds of competition, and that there was com-
petition, strong competition, introduced by the railway
companies and other companies, who, it might be, adver-
tised their situations and selected the most fitting as their
servants. The evil which was to be abolished in this coun-
try was felt in India, and the system of examination
adopted. Let the example be followed. What they wanted
to do away with was that continual application to mem-
bers of the house, which was felt to be an evil, and which
they had hoped Government would have accepted this
resolution for the purpose of abolishing, thereby giving a
direction to the orders in council, and in no other way in-
terfering with them.

Mr. LINDSAY said the resolution contemplated supe-
rior qualifications and merit as a basis for admission into
the civil service, but he could conceive of a Government
not wishing to adopt any such basis. Patronage might be
useful to a Government, especially the Government that
now sat there. It had been said that Government could
not exist without patronage, but he thought that the Go-
vernment which could not exist on its own intrinsic merits
ought not to exist at all. The right hon. gentleman said
he was favourable' to administrative reform—why then
did he not adopt such a resolution as that, which, though
a small step, was yet a step in the right direction. He
must repeat what he had said before, that policy, and
policy only, had induced the Government to agree to the
motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B.
Lytton), and no real wish to carry it into effect, otherwise
their course to-night would have been different from what
it was. Perhaps now the house would allow him to refer
to matters personal to himself which had occurred in a
previous debate, referred to in the course of this night: If
he was out of order he trusted to be told of it, but yet
he begged the indulgence of the house. It had been said,
in the course of the debate on administrative reform, that
he was a stater of virulent untruths that were not founded
in fact. He would not allude to charges which, though made
within that house against him, had not been made by right
hon. and hon. gentlemen in their places, and he was dis-
posed to believe that they were words used in a hasty
moment, and, therefore, he would pass them ever.
But he would refer to what was alluded to in the coarse
of that debate by a right hon. gentleman now in the house.
He (Mr. Lindsay) had stated that 3,000 horses were to have
been sent out to the Crimea, and in reply the exact num-
ber was stated to be 2,810, showing that this statement was
substantially correct and founded on fact. Again, these
horses were much required at the time; they ought to have
been immediately sent oat; and he stated that they might
have been sent out, and that offers at a low rate had been
made, which, however, had been pitched into the waste bas-
ket. It was said in reply that Government did not like sail-
ing vessels. Yet other Governments had used sailing ves-
sels, and had transported their horses with less loss and fewer
deaths among them than our own Government. But that
the offer was pitched into the waste basket, the Government
might have got at that moment a magnificent fleet of sail-
ing vessels for four months (for the contracts of the Ad-
miralty are for that period), at a cost to the country of
00,0001. But these horses were sent out in steam-vessels
at a cost, he believed, to the country of 300,0001., being a
differeace of 201,0001. in the transport of these horses—
the cost of the difference between steam and sailing ves-
sels. He felt that he must not diverge into argument,
but must confine himself to the statement of facts. He
had stated that the ship European had been offered to the
British Government, and refused on account of the trouble
and frivolous terms to which the owner had been subjected.
In reply, it was said to that that she had been refused not
on that account, but because the height of the ship be-
tween decks was not sufficient. Now, the Admiralty
height was 7 ft. 6 in., and the height of that ship was
7 ft. 6,i in. between decks, whereas the Oneida was only
7 ft. 4- in. Again, he had stated, that a ship had been
ordered to come round from the Clyde to Liverpool to be
surveyed, but that the owners declined to do so until they
were assured of the ship being accepted by the Govern-
ment. On that point there was some mystification.
There had been some mystification over that Treasury
bench for the last two or three months. His statement
was not denied ; but what was the fact ? The ship was
ordered to come round either to Liverpool or London, not
to be fitted, but to be surveyed. There was a marked dif-
ference between surveying and fitting. The owner would
have no objection to go round for fitting; but to be surveyed
merely ! Why, instead of the 4001. which he said would be
the cost, the owner estimated the cost at 1,0001. of doing so.
(Here the hon. gentleman was interrupted by several cries
of " Question, question," but Sir Charles Wood, we be-
lieve, interfered with a " Pray don't"—evidently wishing
that he should be allowed to go on.) The hon. gentleman
proceeded to the next point, which was to deny that either
himself or Mr. Gladstone was, directly or indirectly, inte-
rested in these ships or connected in any way with their ma-
nagement. The next point was, that the Govern-
ment had sent a vessel from London to the Tyne
for 12 tons of iron cylinders. For that he produced
the order from the Admiralty; but if they were 80
tons, why that was a point between the present and
the previous First Lord of the Admiralty. Yet it was
said the owner could not have remonstrated very
strongly. Perhaps that might be concluded from the one
extract which was read by the right hon. gentleman. But
were there no verbal remonstrance? Why otherwise did
the Admiralty insist on the ship Robert Lowe going to the
Tyne? There must have been many remonstrances. The
next point was thata ship had been ordered down to Wool-
wich to have her engines inspected. He had produced do-
cuments to prove every point but that. Yet it did happen
that truth would triumph. The captain then on board that
vessel was at present in England, and at Sunderland he
read the debate, and wrote in reply that ho could sustain
every word which ho (Mr. Lindsay) had said, and sent up
an extract from his log, verified by affidavit. The log stated
that he attended at Whitehall; was ordered to take the
ship Tynemouth down to Woolwich to have her engines
inspected; sailed to Woolwich and reported the ship to the
commodore for inspection, and that the ship was inspected
next day. She was detained altogether eight days, at a
cost of from 6001. to 8001. to the country. To show the
way in which contrary orders were issued, and how
the time was spent, he read a further extract from the
log, stating that one order came down to put out all his
coals, another order, from another department, to keep
coals enough on board for her engines ; that he took in two
large guns, weighing 67 tons ; was asked by one authority
why he did not take the other two; was ordered by another
to pat out the two he had already on board ; and again in-
formed by another that the two guns might remain on
board. Such were the contradictory orders which captains
were obliged to attend to. (Hear, hear.) Again, the right
hon. gentleman attempted to find out a case in which a
ship ordered to sail by a certain day was not ready to go
to sea. He read an extract froma letter stating that the
machinery was not out of order—that it could not bo bet-
ter—that he had got it cleaned, and a few odds and ends
put in, such as might be required after 12 months' use - -
and that an improvement was made on the valves, which
Tlwasetr e
cvl
would have the effect of saving 20 per cont. but that they
What (w donee
thsoe, fact?but theyh,)
were ready in due time toproceed to sea, and would
as
have
( ret an
mn ee
(n 1 t sfUtorresstoml,ecrse.
taken on board at two o'clock iu the
afternoon, and these
stores consisted of cases containing clothing for the troops
which were embarked at Plymouth, d - P
e ln the ship proceeded
to sea at a quarter past
threeev
elc The right hon. gen-
tleman referred to a letter, from Which he garbled extract. If he read any, he
ought to
have only
a
the whole. He (Mr. Lindsay) had further to staavtee readth
the returns for which he moved in January,
andat
were laid upon the table, were not correct. Tho returns
which
which he referred did not containone item of Cornmisaeitoat
stores. Those returns, in short, did not furnish the
matter
to which he had referred. As regarded the transports,
the return was incorrect. He had instanced the case a
the ship Tynemouth, The sight lion, gentleman said he

had quoted a wrong date. No suck thing—he knew the
value of accuracy too well in such matters to be guilty of
such an error. The right hon. gentleman said the ship had
made only 12 voyages between 10th June and 18th Decem-
ber. He (Mr. Lindsay) had stated she made 21, and such
was the fact, and the return was wrong, quite wrong, as
regarded that ship ; and, if wrong with regard to one ves-
sel, most likely it was erroneous with respect to others.
The right hon. gentleman had attacked him in his private
capacity as a merchant, The best answer he could give to
that attack was by simply pointing out what he had been
and what he now was. That was the best proof whether he
had managed his business well or otherwise. With respect
to the ship Strathmore, he averred that it was recalled be-
cause of the prejudice and bigotry of the Government sur-
veyors. The right hon. gentleman had said the ship was
unsteady, and liable to topple over. She never did topple
over. Since then she had taken on a cargo to Bombay or
Australia, and had, at all events, sailed more than 10,000
miles in all weathers, and had never toppled over. In the
last voyage she encountered a hurricane and sustained some
damage, as any ship might, but she was now repaired and in
this country, and as sound a ship as ever swam the ocean.
But he had only to go back a few months in order to inform
the right hon. gentleman of a ship that did topple over as
soon as she came into service, because the Government had
supplied her—he meant her Majesty's ship Perseverance,
which, having been rigged out as a 74-gun ship, without
regard to her capacity, toppled over in Woolwich dock-
yard, her masts falling through the soof of a mill.
The SPEAKER—I must remind the hon. member that
he is now going into matters which are not of a personal
nature. The hon. gentleman has obtained the indulgence
of the house whilst he explains matters personal t•) him-
self, but lie could not, with propriety, go further into this
part of the subject.
Mr. LINDSAY would of course at once bow to the de-
cision of the chair, and would take some other opportunity,
or perhaps state in some other manner, the details with
which he was now prepared. There was, however, one other
i matter, which, as it was personal to himself, he would ask
the indulgence of the house while he explained. The right
hon. gentleman had accused him of entering into con-
tracts which he had not executed, and the right honour-
able gentleman, after ransacking for a period of ten
years, brought up three cases. Now, these cases had
occurred in 1852. That was a most extraordinary year.
Ships were not to be had at almost any price. It was well
known that the Peninsular and Oriental Company were
unable to obtain sufficient ships or coals. The firm of
which he was at the head had, on the contract to which
the right hon. gentleman referred, lost 4,7001. And, after
all, what was the breach of contract ? They had shipped
278,000 tons of coals out of a contract of 300,000 tons.
That the whole contract was not fulfilled in the time speci-
fied was owing to the extraordinary circumstances of the
time, and was altogether exceptional. If he managed busi-
ness matters in Austin-friars as they did at the Admiralty,
he would have been in the Bankruptcy Court long since.
The right honourable gentleman said that the coals, which
ought, according to the contract, to have been shipped by
August, 1852, were not shipped until June, 1853. Now
the fact was, that for several months after the com-
mencement of the contract, his firm not only fur-
nished the required quota, but more than that. In
June, 1852, 2,132 tons were shipped • In July, 1,065.
Upon the whole, the deficiency on one of contracts was
not more than 710 tons, instead of 4,500, as the right hon.
gentleman had asserted. But he would not now longer
trespass on the house, but would quite justify and bear
out the statements he had made upon a future occasion.
Sir C. WOOD was glad the hon. gentleman had had an
opportunity of making a statement on a matter strictly
personal to himself, and as the subject was one which he
(Sir C. Wood) might also say was personal to himself, he
would ask the indulgence of the house for a few moments.
The hon. gentleman had put words into his mouth which
he had never uttered. He had never stated that upon no
one occasion had the hon. gentleman performed his con-
tracts ; neither did he go back over a period of 10 years to
seek for charges against the hon. gentleman ; and the hon.
gentleman himself showed that he had not done so, for the
case to which he referred occurred in 1852, only three
years ago, and not 10. He had before him the return to
which the hon. gentleman alluded, respecting the contract
of coals with the East India Company, showing when the
coals were to have been delivered by the contractors and
when they were actually delivered. His statements upon
this had, upon a former occasion, notwithstanding the re-
marks of the hon. gentleman, been strictly correct, and he
held the return in his hand which proved they were so.
The last delivery of coals ought to have been made, ac-
cording to the contract, in August, 18.52 ; but instead of
August, 1852, it was June, 1853, when the last delivery
took place. He stated at the time he first referred to this
fact that there might have been circumstances to account
for the non-performance of the contract ; but when the
hon. gentleman asserted publicly that the Government
business was all chaos and confusion, and that private es-
tablishments were so much better conducted than public
ones, he thought it was a perfectly legitimate argument to
show that contracts undertaken by hon. gentlemen pro-
fessing those opinians were not always so punctually and
so religiously fulfilled. (Hear.) If those who advocated
administrative reform in the public service did their
own business as merchants remarkably ill, he could not
understand what argument it was they were pressing on
the house and on the country. He had not raked up any-
thing out of official documents, nor adverted to anything
which had not appeared in the public prints or in public
documents. With respect to the Strathmore, what ho had
stated was upon authority. The agent to the Emigration
Board reported that she was unfit and unsafe for the con-
veyance of emigrants. The officer at Tahiti who had sur-
veyed her—andwho, surely, could not be said to be biassed
by the Admiralty—declared that the vessel contained with-
in her the elements of ruin, and that she was defective in
her original construction. As to the Tynemouth, the ac-
cusation made was that the Admiralty had ordered the
vessel from Deptford to Woolwich to be surveyed. The
hon. gentleman had not given the slightest proof of that.
The hon. gentleman had accused him of having on a pre-
vious occasion read a garbled extract from a letter. Now,
the fact was, that he had read no letter at all—(hear) —no
letter or part of a letter. (Hear.) What he said was, that
on the 4th of June Mr. Gladstone reported that the Tyne-
mouth was ready to go to sea. But the hon gentleman
read a letter as if it were a portion of that letter which ho
assumed him (Sir C. Wood) to have quoted, but which he
had not read at all. There was this, however singular,
that the letter read by the hon, gentleman was not of the
4th of June, but of the 31st of May. (Hear, hear.) So
that the letter the hon. gentleman referred to was of a
different date altogether. But he now held in his hand
the letter from Mr. Gladstone, dated the 4th of June, in
which he said " The ship may go to sea to-morrow (the
sth June), unless you have more stores to send." (Hear.)
Yes, but that was from the owner of the vessel. The ques-
tion is, was she really and bona fide ready to go to sea?
Now, hear the report of Mr. Galloway, who went to sur-
vey the vessel on behalf of the Admiralty :—" In reply to
your letter I beg to state that I precetded, yesterday, to
Blackwell and examined the machinery, &c., of the Tyne-
mouth. The workmen were completing her repairs. They
say she will be ready by the Bth, when I will attend and
make a survey and report the result to you." Now, this
was the vessel the owner had declared was ready to go to
sea on the sth. (Hear.) On the Bth Messrs. 111`Donald
and Bateman went to survey her. They found that her
compasses were being adjusted—the master was absent—
the ship's articles were not on board, nor all the crew—and
that she would not be completed for two or three days.
Tho ship's hold was not properly stowed—a quantity of
shot was scattered about. On the 9th she lost her anchor
from want of a chain. She left for Plymouth next day,
having received a certificate from the Board of Trade that
she was fit to go to sea. Thus it would be seen that ho was
entirely borne out by unquestionable documents in his
statements regarding the Tynemouth. (Hear.) As to the
Robert Lowe, he would not repeat what he had said on a
former occasion. The hon, gentleman had stated that the
Robert Lowe went to Newcastle from Deptford for 12 tons
of combustibles, whereas the fact was, she went for 12
tons of combustibles, and 60 tons of cylinders as well—
(hear)—so that it was not 12 tons, but for nearly 80 tons
she went to Newcastle. (Mr. Lindsay handed a docu-
ment to Sir C. Wood, who, up )n looking at it, said)
—Just so ; that exactly confirmed what he had stated,
12 toes of combustibles and 60 tons of cylinders also.
He would now show that, with regard to another point,
the statements made by the ,hon. member were without
foundation. He had stated that transports were required
to convey 3,000 horses to the Crimea. The hon. member
had misquoted what ho (Sir C. Wood) had said. His for-
mer statement was that, on the Ist May, about 2,000 and
not 3,000 horses were to be sent out. The exact number
was 2,010, but it was subsequently increased to 2,800, and
by the 15th of June 2,600 were actually sent out to the
Crimea. (Hear.) With regard to the Columbia, the hon.
member had made an attempt to represent that' she was
ordered from Deptford to Woolwich to be surveyed,
whereas she Ras ordered round to be surveyed and fitted
for service. To one more case only would he refer, and he
was glad to be able to do so, as the hon. member had
now repeated for the fourth time a statement which was
not correct. The hon. member must be understood as
having made the statement after due consideration, for
he made it first at Drury-lane, then in that house, then
in a letter addressed to the Times newspaper, and then
again in that house, and he challenged him (Sir C. Wood)
to disprove its accuracy. The challenge ho most willingly
accepted. It referred to the height between decks of the
European, and he before stated that no condition was im-
posed upon the owner of the vessel, but that she was re-
' fused partly on account of the price, and partly on account
of her height between decks. He could now show from a
letter in his possession that such were the facts, and that
her height was not sufficient to enable her to carry horses.
He had in his hand the original tender of the owners of
the European. The document was signed by a partner of
the hon. member, viz.: G. Gladstone for J. Gladstone.
(He had before stated that, when the hon. member came
into Parliament, certain contracts were transferred into
other names.) The dimensions of the European were given
and the height between decks in three places was 6 feet 6
inches. What means then had the Government of knowing
the real facts if a document signed hya partner of the hon.
member was not to be believed ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY explained that the height of the Robert
Lowe was 7 feet 6 inches from deck to deck.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE recalled the attention of the house
to the original debate, and while he accepted the amend-
ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the previous
question as admitting the importance of the motion, he
maintained it did not tend to revoke the former order
l in council, but only to modify it in such a manner as to
make it more efficient. He was sure that if Ministers would
count up what they lost and gained by the present system,
they would gladly give up their patronage for the sake of
having their departments well and efficiently oonducted.
Sir F. BARING denied that the civil departments were
in such an inefficient state as was generally supposed, and
he did not think that the system of a public and competi-
tive examinatllen would secure as good public servants as
we had now. His fear was that it would fill our public
offices with over-educated men, above their work, and dis-
contented with their position. Ho had something to do
hweit‘hratshtehe right appointment
man in the right place, but he should beintment of Sir C. Trevelyan, and he believed
Is;
ar sorry . to
Thhaev
system
a public
of
office
f political
no
dor
nwi
ni taht
iSir
wCal ea s
complainedr 1e s Tr
of, but he believedgreat part of it arose from the cowardice
of hon.gentlemen, who had not firmness enough to do their
duty. The defect in the present system in his opinion was
that there were no means of getting rid of the incompetent
clerks who occasionally found their way there.
Mr. GLADSTONE said if ho understoood aright, the
the motion of the hon. member for Cork wft best adapted
wcluats. 8 nt jocltu soon:2 lie hwhetherthehouse
every w
a was
paabort out t
i icul ao r record
ecexpression
its
votein
for the purpose he had in view, as whether—after the argu-
ments which had fallen from his right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer—it would be right for the
house to adopt the principle the motion contained. (Hear.)
He asked them whether the resolution to which he re-
ferred was sufficient to meet the call for reform, or whe-
ther
to hini
it
wasno t
thing, but which certainly at the same time might be un-
derstood to mean everything or nothing, according to the
to? t He e n
n must
ns
ft
generalities,
w thehich resolution
m ean ty a
n ap-
peared-
fancies of those by whom it was adopted. (A laugh.) All
sorts of speeches] were made in support of the motion—
some meaning much, /some meaning little, and others

• meaning nothing at all—(laughter)—because, while pro-
fessing so much, it was asserted that everything had been
. done which it was possible to accomplish. (Hear, hear.)
Well, that resolution having been passed, and, ho would
say, passed in a manner which he regretted, it was time
for the house to consider what further duties in the same
direction were incumbent upon it. They were called
upon to see into the management of public institutions,
I and the real question was, not whether they ought to copy
or adhere to the plan pursued by private institutions, but
whether they bad placed themselves in the position best
calculated te provide the fittest person for carrying on
the public business. His right hon. friend the member
for Portsmouth had made, he thought, a very fair state-
ment upon the matter. He laid a fair statement, and
he would only qualify that sentiment by saying he did
not consider it was fair for him to lay so much upon
the back of Sir Charles Trevelyan. Had the right hon.
baronet read the paper of Sir James Stephens ? His was
a testimony which was worthy of special attention, for it
came from a man who had spent 30 or 40 years in the
public service, and who, for his own part, eschewed the
various proposals which had been brought forward, and
yet that testimony would be found opposed to the obser-
vations bearing upon Sir Charles Trevelyan which had
fallen from the right hon. member for Portsmouth. (Hear.)
He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think there was any necessity
for him to use any extraordinary terms in order to de-
scribe tie civil service. His right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would, doubtless, bear him out
when he said the higher offices were well, and sometimes
admirably, filled by men, indeed, whose conduct would
do honour to the civil service of any nation. (Hear.) But
the mode of election was not the most satisfactory, be-
cause, in consequence of the incompetency which prevailed
in the lower grades—in consequence of the deadness of all
the lower limbs of the system—when a good man was
wanted in the higher departments, they had, in three cases
out of four, to go out of the civil service altogether. This,
of course, did not apply to such names as Wood, Trevel-
yan, and Merivale—and no doubt there were many other
able men in various positions—but still, at the same time,
he would repeat they had, in three cases out of four, to
seek for the highest assistance without the ranks of the
civil service altogether. (Hear, hear.) Now, he main-
tained that the lower ranks of the department should be
brought into such a state of efficiency as to render that
unnecessary. The general rule was to go out of the service
for able men, while it should certainly be to find them
within it. The consequence of the present system was,
that in bringing in so many men to fill the higher ranks,
the good, the middling, and the bad got classed together,
and it was, therefore, no reproof to the men of the service
to say that their condition was unsatisfactory. They
could not look into the columns of the Times without
seeing offers of money made for Government appoint-
ments. He held in his hand a volume, price 25., en-
titled, " A Guide to Government Situations."
(Laughter.) It was a practical book, and pointed out that
the only way to obtain an appointment was by means
of Parliamentary influence ; and it dwelt especially upon
the fact that the applicant should be careful to secure
the interest of an active supporter of the Government, and
not that of a silent member. (Laughter.) This showed
there was a large class of men who were kept continually
hanging in this state of expectancy. (Hear, hear.) He
felt a strcng persuasion that the question was making
steady way in that house, and that discussion was all that
was wanted to come to the merits of the case ; and the
more they went into it, the more satisfaction would they
give to the public service.
Mr. TITE congratulated himself and the house on the
admission of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down, that this question was making steady progress in
that house. The hen, gentleman then entered into an ex-
planation of a motion, very similar in its nature to the
present, that he had advocated, but that it had been totally
misunderstood by the Government. He protested it had
not been brought forward on political grounds, and was
not intended as a motion against the Government, but was
principally brought about by the result of the Sebastopol
committee. He bad no doubt that in the long run public
examinations would be adopted. He concluded by advis-
ing the withdrawal of the motion. (Oh, oh.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I think it may fairly be said, as
the result of the discussion, that all parties are agreed as
to the object we have in view, that object being to fill the
different offices of the Government with fit and capable
men. The difference between us arises upon the method
by which that object is to bo accomplished. In the first
place, I must say that I think a great deal of unjust cla-
mour has been raised with regard to the efficiency and con-
duct of those persons who belong to the different depart-
ments. It is the fashion to say that those departments are
filled by men incompetent for their duties. It often hap-
pens that somebody goes to a great public office with some
application or request which is perfectly inadmissible and
against all the rules of the service to which it applies, and
when he finds he cannot obtain what he wants, ho goes
about the town declaiming against the insolence of the
clerks of the department. (Hear, hear.) Though we are
agreed as to the object in view, many of those who have
discussed the subject have adduced arguments which are not
exactly those on which the question ought to bo decided.
There can be no doubt that it is of the utmost importance
to the public interest that the different departments of ti?
Government should be filled by competent persons ; but 1
do not think that one of the principal reasons for that ob-
ject is that members of Parliament will be relieved from
the trouble of corresponding with importunate constitu-
ents, who apply to them for places under Government. No
doubt that is very inconvenient, and it is the more so, be-
cause those who are the most troublesome are the least en-
titled to the places they seek ; but it is an evil of which
hon. members can relieve themselves by a little firmness
and discretion, and those who evince that firmness and
discretion will stand well with their constituents. It
seems to me that the evil arising from observing the prin-
ciple of seniority in appointments, so far from being di-
minished, would be very much increased by the proposal
of the hon. member, for open competition. We aro told
that one of the effects of it would be to fill the iuforior de-
partments with young men of greatand remarkable talent ;
but if that were so, how would the systen of promotion be,
in any degree accelerated, or how would these young men
be relieved from the disappointment of waiting for promo-
tion by seniority? Where all are nearly equal in capacity,
we mustlproceed necessarily more or less upon the principle
of seniority, and promotions will continue slow. It may he
said the present system of appointment by selection creates
disappointment ; there are doubtless groat numbers of
persons who pass theirlives in making repeated applications
for situations for which they are not qualified, and which
they do not obtain; but I venture to say that if the pro-
posed system is adopted a great many more will be disap-
pointed, but with this difference, that they will be disap-
pointed with just expectations. The only result of it will
be to bring a great many young men into the public offices,
who will soon be disgusted at the length of time they have
passed in inferior occupations, and who will eventually
leave the public service, and go to the more alluring pur-
suits of commerce. The system which establishes a rigid
examination of persons selected by the heads of depart-
ments, is that which appears most likely to conduce to the
efficiency of the public service. I quite agree with those
who say that examination is the real test of capacity. Pro-
bably examination may also only be a test of memory, but
on the whole, it is the test of general capacity, and of in-
tellect as well as attainments. With regard to public ex-
aminations, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that the interruption arising from an influx of spectators
during an examination would tend to disttu'la the opera-
tions of tlse mind, and distract those whose whole faculties
ought to bo concentrated ou the matters before them ; and
as examinations are chiefly conducted in writiong, there
would be nothing of which strangers could become adequate
judges. I should entreat the house to content themselves
for the present, at least, with the arrangement which has
been very recently established Ido not mean to say that
the principle of competition should not to a certain extent
be practised. For instance, the head of a department, in-
stead of examining one candidate for a single vacancy,
might, when there were several suitable candidates, ex-
amine three, four, or five, and select from that number
the person who was best qualified ; but I think it highly
important that the selection in the first instance should
rest with the head of the department, who is responsible
for the conduct of the persons he appoints. One great
difficulty has been adverted to for which, I confess, I see
no effectual remedy. Some argue that the higher appoint-
ments in a department ought invariably to be given to
those who have risen step by step in that department;
others, again, contend that those more important places
should be given to persons taken from other walks of life,
who, from the qualities they have shown, are more fitted
for them. This, I admit, is a difficult subject,. but it is
impossible to take either of these rules to guide us. Fur-
ther, I can only say this, that it is the anxious desire of
the Government so to arrange the system of examination
as to secure the appointment of competent persons to the
different departments of the State, and I should hope the
house would, at all events, give the arrangements, which
have been so recently established, a fair trial, which, as
yet, they have not had. If next year the arrangements
are not proved to be successful, any hon. member will then
be at liberty to suggest such other method as he may think
calculated to attain the same end with more certainty.
(Hear, hear.
Mr. V. SCULLY replied—He hoped that upon this
occasion the house would vote quite irrespective of party,
and in such a way as to their convictions should guide
them. It was a mistake to suppose that be had desired to
confine it to a literary examination ; on the contrary, he
desired that it should be such as was fitted to the particu-
lar office for which the persons examined should be candi-
dates. The only question was, whether those appointed
under the present system were equal to their duties, and
if not, whether his proposals were such as would remedy
the existing deficiencies. Unlike the amendment of the
hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B.
Lytton), which was purely theoretical reform, his motion
was of a practical character, and he hoped that the house
would agree to its adoption.
The house then divided—

For the motion
Against it
Majority against it -15
The motion was therefore loot.
CALL OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ROEBUCK, at a quarter to one o'clock, but in a
very full house, next rose to move, pursuant to notice,
that the house be called over on Tuesday next. Ho said—
I shall have to crave the indulgence of the house for a short
time, but I will promise to be as brief as possible. The
motion of which I have given notice, fora call of the
house, is one that I think must recommend itself to every
hon. member who considers with me that the question I
propose to bring under the notice of the house on Tuesday
next is one of great importance. (He +r, hear.) It is one
which concerns the present Administration, a large body of
political men, and the army of this country. It
thein-
terest as well as the wish of this country that its army
should be watched over and cared for, and a committee of
this house was appointed to ascertain how that duty 'had
been performed by those to whom it was entrusted. They
were condemned by the committee so appointed, and I
want to ascertain whether the house concurs in the report
of that committee. A more important question could not
be put, and therefore I move that this house be called over
on Tuesday next.
Lord W. PAULETT would not oppose the motion, but
feared that it would bo ineffectual in securing an attend.
ance.

Lord SEYMOUR did not think that the object of the
.hon. and learned member would be effected by the motion,
if successful, while it would put the house to great incon-
venience. (Hear.) There was a large number of members
in town, while those who were not, were engaged on mili-
tia, assizo, and other important business. Besides, the
notice was exceedingly short. It was usual to give at least
ten days' notice of a call. Then, when a call took place,
what usually happened? Members came down and an-
swered to their names, but there was nothing to comp 31
them to wait for a division. Besides, the hon. and learned
member's motion might lead to an adjourned debate, and,
in addition, there was another motion of want of cc na-
donee for Friday, the debate on whiea wculd, most pl o °a-
bly, be adjourned also. Under all the circumstances ho
would suggest to the hon. and learned member to withdr .w
his motion, seeing that so large a body of members were in
town, and that those who were absent could not return
without much inconvenience.
Mr. 11.A.DFIELD supported the motion, and urged that

the privateaffairs of members should not be held as justi-
fying their Lbsence from the house in a time of national
exigency.
Mr. S. VORTLEY appealed to the hon. and learned
member to withdraw his motion ; adding that there were
enough of rembers in town to discuss a question of im-
portance.
Mr. ROIBUCK- I am sorry to give the house this
trouble, bu I think I shall show some very good reasons
for my moton. First of all, in reply to the noble lord the
member forTotnes, I have to say that in a treatise on the
rights and irivileges of this house it is laid down that the
time for a all should bo from one day to six weeks, but
that was tie rule when communications were not so
rapid. Nov that we have the rail and the electric tele-
graph, I think that seven days is quite sufficient. I shall
now state candidly my reason for making this motion.
It has been stated to me more than once that attempts
have been made—l won't say by whom, although the
house well &new by whom—attempts have been made to
induce members to leave town, and therefore I take my
stand on tie ancient usages of the house by moving for a
call. It vas the only deence I had against the artifices
used to derive me of the means of testing the wishes of
this house. And when I am bold that it is uanecessarily
harassing nowhere, and at the same time likely to be un-
availing, Ithink that there is something contradictory in
the statement. members are only brought to the house,
I am sure be importauss of the motion will induce them
to remain; while, on the other hand, if they are induced
to leave town, the question will be robbed of its due sup-
port, and the country will suffer in an equal proportion.
It is not therefore to give annoyance to hon. members, but
to obtain a sufficient discussion on a great question that I
make this motion, and I beseech the house to take the
constitutional means of enforcing a full attendance.

The house divided—
Ayes lOB
Noes 133
Majority —25
The motion was therefore lost. Tho result of the divi-
sion was received with some cheering.
TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for
leave to bring in a bill to abolish certain payments charged
on the Consolidated Fund in favour of the Provost and
Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, and of certain profes-
sors in the said college, and to repeal the stamp duties pay-
able on matriculations and degrees in the said college.
Agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
In answer to Mr. DISRAELI,

Lord PALMERSTON said that on Friday he intended
to go on with the Limited Liability Bill and the Partner-
ship Bill.
COURT OF JUDICATURE ((PRINCE OF WALES
ISLAND, &c.).
. .

Mr. V. SMITH obtained les.;ire to bring in a bill to amend
certain acts relating to the Court of Judicature of Prince
of Wales Island, Singapore, and Malacca.
The house rose at a quarter past 1.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

HOUSE OF COMVIONS -JuLY 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM.

Motion made, and question proposed, " That an numblo
address be presented to her Majesty, thanking her Majesty
for her most gracious order in Council, of the 21st day of
May last, by which certain persons were directed to examine
into and certify the qualifications of all young men pro-
posed to bo appointed to junior situations in any depart-
ment of the civil service ; and praying that her Majesty will
be graciously pleased to direct the examination to be an
open one, and held in public, and that the examiners do
have regard to superior qualifications and merit ; and pray-
ing also that a similar order in Council be issued as to the
diplomatic and consular services, with the view to secure
greater efficiency in those departments of the public ser-
vice." Previous question put, " That that question be now
put." The house divided; ayes, 125 ; noes, 140.

AYES-125.
•
Adair. 1.1. Gibson, T.
Adderley, C. Gladstone, W.
Alexander, J. Gordon, A.
Anderson, Sir J. Graham, Lord W.
Annesley, Earl of Greenall. G.
Antrobus, E. Greene, John
Archdall, M. Grcnfell, Chas.
Ball, E. Greville, Col. F.
Ba!dock. E. Gwyn H.
Barnes, T. Hadfield, G.
Bass, T. Hankey, T.
Raxter. W. Hastie, Alex.
Bell, J. llastie, Archd.
Bland, L. Heard, J.
Brady, J. Hervey, Lord A •
Brocklehurst, J. ITeywood, J.
Byng, G. Ilindley, C.
Clay, Sir W., Bt. Hutchins, E.
Cobden, R. Jackson, W.
Cogan, W. H. F. Keating, Ti.
Colville, C. R. Kennedy, T.
Cowan, C. Kershaw, J.
Crook, J. Kinnaird, A.
Crossley, F. Knox, Col. B. W.
Dashwood, Sir G. IL Lam ton, H. G.
Dering, Sir E. Laslett, W.
Dillwyn, L. Lindsay, W.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. LOW E.
Duke, Sir J. Lushinzton, C.
Duncan, G. Macgregor, John
Dunlop, A. MacMahon, P.
Ehrington, Viscount Maguire, J.
Esmond e, J. Mangles, Ti. D.
Ewart, W. Meagher, T.
Evart, J. MIMI, E.
Fagan, W. Michell, W.
Farnham, E. Murrough, T.
Fenwick, Jr. Northcote, Sir S.
Ferguson, J. Oakes, J.
Fergusson, Sir J. O'Brien, P.
Forster, C. O'Connell, D.
Fortescue, C: 01F1 alter ty; A.
Galwey, Sir W. Oliveira, B.
NOES-140.

Otway, A.
Parker, R.
Pecheil, Sir G.
Pellatt, A.
Phillhnore, R. J.
Pigott, F.
Pilkington, J.
Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Renton, G.
Ricardo, 0.
Rich, H.
Roebuck, J.
Russell, F. C.
Russell, F. W.
Sadleir, James
Sadleir, John
Scholefield, W.
Scobell, Capt. G.
&Illy, F.
Seymour, W. D.
Shafto, R.
Smollett, A.
Stanley, Lord
Stuart, W.
Sullivan, Michael
Sutton, J.
Talbot, C.
Thompson, G.
Thornhill, W.
Tite, W.
Tollemache, J.
Vivian, H. E.
Walcott, Admiral
Wells, W.
Wit/Oman, J.
Wilkinson, W.
Williams, W.
ise. A.
Yorke, E.
TELLERS
Sadly, V.
Goderich, Vis.

Acland, Sir T. Frewen, C.
Acton, S. Galway, Viscount.
Bagge, W. ("mikell, J.
Bailey, C. Gregson, S.
Baines, Rt. lion. M. Getty, Sir G.
Baring, Sir F. Grey, It,
Barrington, Viscount Grosvenor, Ld. R.
Beaumont. W. Hall, Sir B.
Beckett, W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Bentina, G. Harcourt, G.
Blackburn, Peter Harcourt, Col. F.
Bolder°, Col. H. 0. Ileathcote, Sir Cf.
Bouyerie, Hon. E. P. Heatheote, G.
Bromley-Moore. J. Henley, J.
Bramston, T. W. Herbert, S.
Brand, H. B. W. Horsman, E.
Brotherton, J. Ho tham, Lord
Bruce, Lord E. Hutt, W.
Buck, G. Jerilyn, Earl
Buckley, Gen. Johnstone, Sir J.
Campbell, Sir A. Jones, Adm.
Castlerosse, Viscount Knight, F.
Cavendish, C. Knightley, B.
Cecil, Lord R. Knox, W. S.
Chambers, T. Langton, W.
Chaplin, W. Lewis, Sir G. C.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.-Lindsay, Col. J.
Coles, H. B. Lovaine, Lord
Coote, Sir n. U. Lowther, Col.
Corry, H. T. L. Luce, T.
Cowper, W. F. Mackinnon, W. A.
Craufurd. E. H. J. Manners, Lord J.
Davies, J. L. Marloribanks, D.
Disraeli. B. Matheson, A.
Drumlanria, Viscount Mlles, W.
Duncan, Viscount Mills, T.
D and aI,,G. Mitchell,lT.
Duncarvan, Viscount Molesworth, Sir W.
Egerton, E. C. Monck, Viscount
Ellice, E. Mon crciff, J.
Elliot, J. Monsen, W.
El mley, Vis. Morris, D.
Evelyn, W. Mowbray, J. E.
Fellowes, E. Noel, G.
Fergitison, Slr J. Osborne, E.
Fitz Gerald, J. Omni stop, Lord
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Owen, Sir J.
Forster, J. Pak ington, Sir J.

Palk, L.
Palmer, Robert
Palmer, Roundel'
Palmerston, Visct.
Peel, Sir lt.
Peel, F.
Pennant, Col. E.
Percy, J.
Perry, Sir T.
Phillimore, J. G.
Portal, M.
Powlett, Lord W.
Price, Sir R.
Pritchard, J.
Ricardo, S.
Rice, E.
Bolt, P.
Russell, Lord J.
Sawle, C.
Seymer, H.
Seymour, Lord
Seymour, 11.
Smith, M.
Smith, R.
Smyth, R. J.
Somerville, Sir W.
Spooner, R.
Stafford,"A.
Steel, J.
Stewart, Sir M.
Tancred, IL
Thornely, T.
Tyler, Sir G.
Vernon, G. -
Villiers, C.
Waddington, 11.
Walter, J.
Waterpark, Lord
Watkins, Col.
Willcox, B.
Wilson, J.
Wood, Sir C.
Wortley, J. S.
Wyvill, M.

TELLERS
Ilayter, W.
ISlu!grave, Earl

CALL OF THE HOUSE.

IMotion made, and question pelt, "That this house be called
over on Tuesday next." The house divided; ayes, 108 ;
noes, 133.
AYES—ICS.
Adair, H. Gladstone, W. Otway, A.
Adderlor, C. B. Goderich, Viscount Pakington, Sir J.
Alexander, J. Gordon, A. Palk, L.
A rchdall, M. Graham, Lord M. Palmerston, Viscount
Bailey, C. Greene. Capt. John Parker, R.
Ball. E. Grenfell, Charles Peel, Sir R.
Baldock. E. 11. Greville, Colonel F. l'eel, F.
Barnes, T. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. l'ellatt, A.
Bell. J. Grogan. Edward Percy, J.
Blackburn, P. Gwyn, Vowel 'Pigott, F.
Bolder°, Lt.-Col. H. G. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Brady, J. Hayter, W. Rice, E.
Bramley-Moore, J. Hindley, G. Bolt, P.
Brand, H. B. W. Horsman, E. Russell, Lord J.
Bruce, Lord E. Jackson, W. Sadleir, James
Buck, G. Kennedy, T. Sadleir, John '
Byng, G. H. C. Kershaw, J. Scobell. Capt.
Cobden, R. Knight, F. Seymour. W. D.
Colvile, C. R. Langton, W. H. P. G. Smith, R.
Cowper, W. Langton, IL G. Smyth. J. G.
Crook, J. Laslett, W. Spooner, R.
Davies, J. Lewis, Sir G. C. Stanley, Lord
Dillwyn, L. L. Lindsay, C. Sullivan, Michael
Disraeli, B. Luce T. Sutton, J.
Duke, Sir J. Lushington, C. M. Taylor, Colonel
Duncan, Viscount M`Gregor. John Vivian, H. H.
Dunne, Colonel Maguire, J. F. Waddington, H.
Egerton. Edw. C. Manners, Lord J. Waterpark, Lord
Emlyn, Viscount Mull, E. Wells, W.
Esmonde, J. Michell, William Williams, W.
Evelyn, W. J. Molesworth, Sir W. Wilson, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Monck, Vis. Wise, A.
Fitzgerald. J. Monsell, W. Wood, Sir C.
Gallirey, SirilY. Mulgrave, Earl of Yorke, E.
Gardner, R. Murrough, J. P. TELLERS.
Gaskell, J. Oakes, J. Roebuck, J. A.
Gibson, M. Oliveira, B. Hadfield, George

NOES-133.
Acland, Sir T. Ferguson, Sir R. Ossulston, Lord
Acton, Joseph Fitzroy, Henry Owen, Sir J.
Anderson, Pir J. Forster, John Palmer, Robert
Alinesley, Earl of Fortescue, C. S. Palmer, Roundel'
Antrobus, E. Frewen, C . 11. Pechell, Sir G.
Ba,gge, W. Galway, Viscount Pennant, Col. E.
Baines Rt. Hon. M. Gregson, Samuel Perry, Sir E.
Ball, J. Grey, It. Pilkington, J.
Baring, H. Grosvenor, Ld. R. Portal, M.
Baring, Sir F. . Hamilton, Lord Claud Powlett, Lord W.
Bass, M. 'donkey, T. Price, Sir R.
Baxter, W. Harcourt, G. G. Pritchard, J.
Beaumont, W. Harcourt, Col. Repton , G.
Bentinek, G. Hastie, Alex. Ricardo, J.
Bland, L. H. Mastic, Archd. Ricardo, 0.
Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Heard, J. Russell, F. C.
Bramston, T. W. Heathcote, Sir G. Russell, F. W.
Brocklehurst, J. Heathcote, G. Sawle, C.
Brotherton, J. Henley, J. Seymer, 11.
Buckley, Gen. Herbert, H. Seymour, 11.
Campbell, Sir A. I. Irton, S. Shafto, R.
Cardwell, E. Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, M.
Castlerosse, Vis. Jones, Admiral Smollett, A.
:.avendisli, C. C. Keating, R. Somerville, Sir W.
Cecil, Lord Kinnalrd, A. Stafford, A.
Child, Smith Knightley, It. Steel, John
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Knox, Col. B. W. Stewart, Sir M.
Corry, H. T. L. Knox, W. S. Stuart, W.
Cowan, C. Lindsay Lt.-Col. 3. Thompson, G.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Lovaine, Lord i Thornely, T.
Crossley, F. Lowe, R. Thornhill, W.
Dashwood; Sir G. Lowther. Col. H. C. Tollemache, J.
Dering, Sir E. Megan, W. Vernon, G.
De Verc, S. E. Mangles, R. Villiers, C.
Duckworth, Sir J. T.B. Marjoribanks, D. Walter, J.
Duncan, George 3tAtheson, A. Watkins, Col.
Dundas, G. Miles, W. Whatman, J.
Thingarvaii, Viscount Mills, T. Wilkinson, W.
Dunlop. A. Mitchell, T. A. Willcox, B.
Ebrington, Viscount Moncreiffi J. Wortley, J. S.
Ellice, E. Morris, D, Wyvill, H.
Elliott, J. E. Mowbray, J. R.
Evart, J. Noel, G.
TELLEII3.
Fagan, W. Northcote, Sir S.
Fellowes, E. O'Brien, P.
Fenw :ck, 11. O'Connell, D. Seymour, Lord
Hutchins, E.

MANCHESTER TRADE REPORT, TuesdaY. The (Actin
ing tendency of the cotton market in Liverpool, and the
favourable prospects of a more adequate supply of the
raw material reported in America, bring about a still
further degree of inaction in this m, arket. The buyers
keep aloof entirely, or offer only prices which are ruin-
ous to the producer, and which can be accepted only by
those who are driven to this necessity, or to the alterna-
t Ivo of stoppin
g their establishment.