The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-02 00:00:00

NOTICE.

Ail remittances are, henceforth, to be made to
Mr. JOHN CHAPLIN, at The Sun office, 112,
Strand, who has been appointed, by the Lord
Chancellor, Receiver and Manager of The Sun
newspaper, and the outstanding debts due in
respect thereof.

Se
'
4 0 ,
iftl4l4- 4
,rt:7 •., „ . t
4 '

THE SUN,
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1862.

_ A gooa 4.,t+.1 of time was again wasted last even-
-Irig upon _ _ _ _
question as to the advantage or disadvantage of
competitive examinations. Mr. HENNESSY, it will
be observed from our epitome of the debates else-
where, began the discussion, according to notice,
by moving a resolution " in favour of throwing
open junior clerkships in the Civil Service by e
system of competitive examination to all subjects
of the QUEEN fulfilling certain conditions as to
age, health, and character, and that with this
view it was desirable that the experiment first
tried at the East India House in 1857 should be
repeated from time to time in the other depart-
ments of the Civil Service." This proposition
having been seconded by Mr. VANSITTART, was
met by an amendment of Mr. BAILLIE COCH-
RANE'S (amusingly seconded by Mr. PEACOCR)—
an amendment running to the effect "That many
of the qualities constituting a good public officer
—good principles, good habits, sound judgment,
general intelligence, and energy—cannot be tested
by any plan of public competition ; the introduc-
tion, therefore, of such a system into all the de-
/iartments of the public service would be very
injurious to their efficiency." Eventually, after a
rather smart discussion, this amendment of Mr.
COCHRANE'S, on being put to the House, was
emphatically negatived. And the original motion
was then left face to face with the War Secre-

tary's counter-resolution, that of simply moving the
previous question. Upon a division, Sir G. LEWIS
thus, it will be perceived, effectually quashed the
proposal of Mr. HENNESSY by carrying the previous
question by a clear majority of 21 in a house of 153.
Lost, and therefore utterly useless, as an effort to,
wards further legislation of any kind in regard to the
guleject of which it treated, though Mr. HENNESSY'S
motion consequently was—it originated a discus-
sion, so lively and searching, upon the merits
and demerits of the system of competitive
examinations that the seemingly idle squandering
of the time consumed upon it yesterday is really
and truly not to be regretted. If the Government—
and the House of Commons with it—declined to
accede to Mr. HENNESSY'S jaunty proposition that
the experiment adventured upon in 1857 at the
India House should not be repeated and extended
in other branches or departments of the Civil Ser-
vice`We imagine that few will hesitate to recognize
the reasonableness of the decision arrived at by the
Government. And a decision very lucidly explained
by Sir GEORGE LEwis when he remarked, that
they (her 'MAJESTY'S Ministers) had established
with regard
to those clerks whose duties were I
merely mechanical a standard simple of examina-
tion, while as to those from whom more intellectual
activity was required they had instituted
ad nstitute° a compe-
titive examination, founded a limited competition,
and they were not prepared either to go back to
simple
the system competition, or to adopt the
system of indiscriminate and open
competition, in
which the head of Vie offi:te would be wholly i.Ttl-
spon3ible ;or the moral character and conduct
of
different
the candidate." Here is exactly one of those wise
decisons known as a selection among
CAMSCS of the juste milieu. It is out of the question
to suppose that the Government, that
would be pre-

TIOIVIdayS

any (iovcrnment for that matter,

pared summarily to abolish the existin; system of
competitive examinations. It is equally out of the
question, we take it, to imagine that Ministers are,
on the other hand, ready at any one's instance, to
widen and widen its application —the application,
that is, of the new system among the various depart-
Taents of the public klervice. In the general principles
of the existing system, a statesman of advanced in-
telligence,
tike the noble lord the member for King's

•-, ..

Lynn, could find it in his heart, without
any hesitation, to express his appri )val last
evening. Yet even Lord STANLEY would
shrink from asserting for one monient that
the system as it is—like every new system in point
of fact—does not admit of very considerable im-
provement. It only required that the House should
listen as well as it could, between explosions of
laughter, to the ludicrous illustrations of the folly
and fatuity still requiring to be eliminated from the
system as it is at present organised—the numerous
illustrations of this capacity for improvement, ad-
duced and gravely applied, among others, to the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer by Mr. PEACOCK ! Particularly in regard to
the problem
,of . any etymological connection dis-
coverable between the nightingale's thrill, the horse's
nostril, and the diverse drill—worn by the negro,
practised by the soldier, and used by the carpenter !
A nonsensical jumble actually down upon the
printed examination papers from which Mr. PEA-
COCK was reading last night to his Laughing
Audience in the House of Commons. Other " puz-
zlers" for novices, were also quoted from the same
preposterous examination papers by the same hon.
member—who must certainly be allowed to have
thereby. fully proved his case : as, for example,
" Who was the author of Polyolbion ?'"—"Who
called CHAUCER'S principal poem—[And, by the way,
what is its title ?]—' the well of English undefiled?"'
—Or, again, " What are the titles of the poems writ-
ten by PIERS PLOWMAN ?" As if the correctly an-
swering of questions like those could in any
conceivable degree serve to demonstrate the
suitability of a candidate for a Government clerk-
ship! No wonder Mr. PEACOCK indignantly asserted
yesterday that the best clerks were often unable to
answer the papers thus sagely designed to test their
capabilities ! And no wonder the House applauded
the hon. member when he said it.

No—before we dream of extending the appli-
cation of the present system of competitive
examinations among the other departments, let
us systematically and resolutely endeavour to
improve it as a system wherever it is
already applied. The rest will follow. And
we argue thus—precisely as in regard to the ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform, we would always
maintain the advisability of improving the repre-
sentative system as it now is, before dreaming of ex-
tending it, or in other words, of giving the boon of
the Ballot precedence over that of the extension of
the Suffrage.

Mr. GLADSTONE and his commander-in-chief,
who gallantly came to his aid last night, have
received an avertissement for Thursday, by a ma-
jority of 127 to 116. The House seems suddenly
to have taken fire on the fire duty, and we can only
express our hope that the fire will not be extin-
guished till it has consumed the unnatural impost.
Mr. SHERIDAN'S proposal was one of the most
moderate—not immediate abolitior —not abolition
at all—only one shilling out of the three down, and
another shilling five years hence. The last shilling
to remain, like the same duty on corn, as a kind of
monument, sacred to the memory of the un-
wisdom of our forefathers. But for these
monumental shillings future generations might
hardly believe that their forefathers had taxed
heavily both the food of the people and the pru-
dence of the possessors of the more destructible
kinds of property.

When the chief arguments of the Government
were, first, wait till Wednesday ; and, next, remem-
ber that much may be said against every tax, we
may be pretty sure that much could not be said for
a Fire Insurance Duty. It is true all taxes are
evils. All curtail the consumption, or lessen the
use of the artielia tia....A.. on a__ - - - - d--
or some luxuries, comforts, or even necessaries, he
might otherwise command; and, so far, when
the repeal of a tax is asked, the question
of the comparative evils of its incidence
is raised. But there may be taxes which
border upon the immoral,which deter men not from
indulgence in luxuries but from the exercise of
virtues, and the Fire Insurance duty comes very
close to this. If prudence be not the noblest of
the virtues, it is one of the most valuable in regard
to the very safety of society ; and the condemned
duty unquestionably operates as a tax on prudence.
When a person, thinking of insuring a thousand
pounds' worth of property, learns that he must
pay to the Exchequer a hundred, and, on a large
portion of property, even two hundred, per cent.
more than the company would charge him, he is
but too apt imprudently to exclaim—" Then, I'll
risk it." It is not easy to ascertain the amount of
property thus imprudently "risked," but it is cer-
tainly very large ; and almost as certain that the
duty is the chief cause of the imprudence. If
Mr. NEWMARSIeS calculation be correct, that 80
per cent. of the insurable property in London
alone was uninsured, we cannot doubt that the cost
of insurance is the reason.

Of the inequality of the tax one or two consi-
derations, obvious to all, show that, in this respect,
not even the Income-tax can surpass it. It is
one which the prudent man is compelled by his
prudence to pay, while his reckless neighbour
escapes without paying a penny. Were the tax
levied on all combustible property, it would be to
that extent equal. As, however, insurance is
voluntary, we are told that 80 per cent. of such
property evades the tax. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer makes a toll-gate, or octroi barrier, of
prudence.
Again, one large class of persons are exempted
from the tax by special favour. As landlords make
our laws we cannot be surprised that they should
remember themselves, and the fact is that the pro-
duce of their estates pays no duty ! We do not
wish the insurance of farming produce to be taxed,
especially as the tax was repealed to enable the
offices to face agricultural incendiarism at a lower
rate of premium ; but we can see no reason why
manufacturing incendiarism is not met in a similar
manner. At the present moment the rates of in-
surance on farming stock are much lower than on
most manufacturing produce.
And then there is, what has always struck us as
the grand inequality of all—the fire insurance duty
is levied on one class of property only, and that
just the class which has the better claim to exemp-
tion—on combustible property. All the enormous
amount of property in land, mines, canals, fisheries,
&c., which is safe from the risk of fire, is safe also
from a charge of 3s. per cent. by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. We can conceive of no law, but the
good old one of the strongest, which could convert
that which lessens the values of property into a means
of taxing it. Land, for instance, cannot take fire—
it escapes, therefore, any premium for insurance
against it. Stock in trade may be burnt in a few
hears, and at any moment, hence it pays to the
insurance office a premium for security. But not
content with this paw, al disadvantage and tax,
the
Cnancellor of the Exchequer steps in and
doub` ea
the disadvantage of goods as compared
with land !
Exact justice would rather require
that land should Pay
an
its incombustibility, and annual tax on account of
that.combustible property
should be exempt. The principle
to sudden loss, and of exempting
of taxing liability
froth it, can never bear a moment's
gvabsolute security
consideration.
We think we have said enough
to show that this