The Sun.
London, England, 1870-01-18 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, JAN. 18, 1870.

IT has long been more than suspected that the
Government designs to throw the Civil Service open
to general competition ; and at length we learn that a
very large and sweeping scheme of reform is
under consideration. The complaint against
the present organisation is that the system
both of choosing and of paying the public servants is
much too uniform. All are selected by the same
process of nomination, accompanied in most cases with
a test examination ; and whilst those clerks who do
the lower kinds of labour get more than the market
price of their services, the higher officials
aro decidely underpaid. The few who do
the brain work, who carry out the general
pDlicy laid down by the Ministry for the time,
and the ruck, who are only animated copying-
presses, stand much on the same footing. It cannot
be doubted that a twofold evil is produced by such
an arrangement. In the first place the higher prizes
are so few and poor that the nation does not
get the best men. In the ordinary walks of life
the very same ability, and the very same work
command three or four times the salary allowed in
the Civil Service. It is obvious enough that the
public loses by such a disparity. In the second
place the labour of the commonest desk character
is paid for at prices which, though not
excessive in themselves, aro considerably above
the current rate. Many young men of education and
abilities, who would ensure fair success in the
ordinary professions, settle down as machines in the
Government departments, hoping for advancement,
which they cannot all obtain, and discontented with
a reward which, though below their deserts,
is above the services they render. This unsatisfactory
system the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER pro-
poses, it is said, to abolish by a reform of a very
root and branch kind. lie thinks of dividing the
Civil Service into two distinct grades. The desk-
work shall not in future he done by men who have
passed high examinations, but by ordinary clerks,
who will be hired at the current rates, and will be in
all respects like the desk-men of any commercial firm.
If dismissed they will not be entitled to either pension
or compensation. To the higher classes of servants
only brainwork will be allotted; they will be chosen
by open competition of great severity ; and their
salaries are to be considerable—say 400 or £5OO to
commence with. If removed, they would be entitled
to compensation.
Should this bold reform be adopted—and it is
tolerably certain that we are on the eve of a change
of some kind—certain material advantages may be
reasonably looked for. It could be brought into operation
as readily as any other scheme of the kind, and if intro-
duced gradually it could not hurt existing interests.
By offering high pay for really important work, the
State would get the best service, which is not the
case at present. These superior posts are to be
perfectly open, and the fairness and equality of the
competition ought, in the case of an exclusive ser-
vice, to more than outweigh whatever advantages may
attach to the principle of selection. If promotion
went ,ity favour under the new system, it is clear that
the complaint of high connections being the only road
to advancement in the public service would bo
much more justifiable than it is now. To
lessen the number of good posts, increase the pay
attached to them, and yet retain the nomination
system, would undoubtedly extend the discontent
now felt by men who are debarred from making the
most of their qualities, through lack of the necessary
" interest." Moreover, the great objection urged
against the principle of open competition has less
force when the posts to be filled up are few. If
admission to a very large service were unrestricted,
it is quite possible that certain objectionable charac-
ters might get in. But such a result can hardly
happen when the service is small, and the
conditions of entrance very onerous. With
respect to the subordinate officials, there can be no
reason why the State should pay more than a
private individual fur similar work, and
therefore the proposal to reduce the routine
duties to salaries at the market rates cannot
be unjust. It is obviously a waste of power and
money to employ an educated gentleman
to do the work of a copying machine,
or at most of a common transcriber. It is
contrary to all principle to expect the State to
go to any other than the cheapest market. Another
a lvantage claimed for the change is that it
would enable the Administration to increase or
diminish at pleasure the subordinate stall: At
present every civil servant regards his post as a sort
of leasehold for which he must be paid in case of de-
privation. Under the proposed system the heads
of departments could dismiss any subordinates whose
services were not needed. So they could; but it is to
be hoped that their power would be sparingly used.
Insecurity of office is objectionable, even if the servant
be well aware of the nature of the bargain he is con-
cluding. Moreover, the great requirement now is not
so much facility for varying the staff employed, as for
permanently reducing it in departments where there
is an excess of labour. The grievance is not that
there are too many servants kept on at one time and
too few _ctLaWther, but that the staff in' certain