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

/ system of competitive examinations? (Cheers.) Who, let
,ne ask, founded—who won our Indian empire? (Hear,
tear.) Those who bought and sold. (Cheers.) Who
xtended it ? Those who bought an i sold. (Hear, hear.)
Vho now transfer that empire to the Crown? Those who
')ought and sold— a company of merchants—merchants, for-
-ootb, whose sons are now not thought worthy to have
even inferior offices in India committed to their bands.
(Cheers.) But are not the sons of those who buy and sell
entitled to the appellation of gentlemen ? (Hear, hear.)
Definitions are dangerous, but I should, nevertheless, like
to know what it is that constitutes a gentleman. (Heal,
he ale) Why, Sir, it appears to me that if a man be im-
'sued with sound Christian principles, if he have received
an enlightened and liberal education, if he be honest, and
virtuous, and honourable— it appears to me, I say, that•
uch a man as that is entitled to the appellation. (Cheers.)
&nd who will tell me that among the sons of those who
buy and sell may net be found men possessing literary
attainments and a refinement of mind which places them
in a position to bear comparison with the highest born
eentloman in India? (Hear, hear.) Who, let me ask,
were the conquerors of that country ? From what class
have they sprung? Who was Clive? (Hear, hear.) The
son of a yeoman. Who was Munro? The son of a Glas-
gow merchant. (Hear, hear.) Who was Malcolm? The
sun of a sheep farmer upon the Scotch borders :
" ilevihns narvis et paupere territ
Missus in imperium magnum."
(Cheers.) These, 61r, ere the wen who have won for us our
Indian empire—(cheers)—anti I entertain no fear that the
sons of those who buy and sell, and who enter the Indian
service by means of this principle of open a mpetition, will
fail to maintain a high position in our army, or that they
will do anything to dishonour the English name. (Hear.)
I have none of those fears therefore with respect to the
adoption of this principle which are in some quarters enter-
tained. I believe it gives a greater security to the appoint-
ment of efficient men than a mere system of patronage
would afford. (Hear, hear.) Patronage is liable to be con-
stantly abu-ecl for political purposes. It operates in many
instancsa in cases in which the person who makes the ap-
pointment has little or no knowledge of the person upon
whom the appointment is conferred. (Hear, hear.) Open
competition, on the contrary, brings the an before you.
(Hear. hoar.) And what are his claims when he does pre-
sent hinis If ? In the first place, be brings with him the
.murance that he is a man of industrious habits. (Hear.)
He also affords some guarantee that he is a man of great
self-control ; that his life has been spent in virtuous pur-
suits, inasmuch as his attainments point out a preference
for mental as contrasted with sensual enjoyments. (Hear,
hear.) Then, what is the ennobling spirit of his life?
Ambition. A desire for honourable fame. (Hear.) What
are the domestic virtues which he exhibits ? A desire to
win the favour and approbation of his friends, and even-
tually to contribute to the support of his aged parents.
(Hear, hear.) Such are the moral qualities which the
principle of open competition will secure, and upon those
grotends I for one prefer that principle deliberately to pa-
tronage with all its corrupting influences. (Cheers.) I
cannot believe that I am violating any public duty, or in-
fringing any prerogative of the Crown, in advocating the
extension to a small portion of the appointments in the
military service in India of a principle which Earliantent
has consented to apply to the whole of the civil service in
that country. I cannot see the fiat-drawn distinction
which appears to be made between the two services; and
if I am driven to a division, which I trust will not hi the
case, I shall feel compelled to record my vote against the
amendment which has been introduce I into this clause in
the other House of Parliament. (Hear, bear.) I wish to
pay no fine compliment to the noble lord the President of
the Board of Control. He has told us in emphatic terms
that he would rather resign his office to-morrow than take
any step which, in his conscience and judgment, he be-
lieved to be subversive of the principle for which he, in
onemon with myself, has contended. In the honour of
the noble lord I place the most implicit reliance. (Hear,
hear.) I am perfectly willing to trust in him, but I
must be permitted to say that I do not think ho now
knows all the difficulties with which this amendment
is surrounded. I feel confident, however, that he
would not give to it his support if he were not of
opinion that, consistently with his duty, he could uphold
the principle which I advocate. lam also prepared to
admit that there is this difference between the application
of the principle cf open competition to the civil and its
extension to the military service. In the case of the for-
mer you have experience to guide you; while in the case
of the latter you do not as yet possess that salutary advan-
tage. If, moreover, we leave this important question for
the present, subject to be dealt with by an Order in Council,
experience will soon come to our assistance and tell us
whether it be or be not desirable to fix by means of a legis-
lative enactment the footing upon which it is for the future
to stand. Having made these observations, I beg again to
repeat my adherence to the principle of unrestricted com-
petition, and if, therefore, the house should go to a divi-
sion, it will be my duty to vote against the amendment to
which the noble lord asks us to assent. (Cheers.)

Lord tiTAN LEY—I concur with the right hon. gentle-
man in every word which he has said with respect to the
advantages of a system of open competition as opposed to
thesystem oft e patronage.
I agree with him, moreover, in
the e
implication he has made upon the
o comments
rne
nwhich
by
remarks to which expression has been given elsewhere upon
this subject, and I am quite willing to repeat this evening
to the house the pledge which a few days ago I ventured
to give them—namely, that I would support no proposi-
tion which in my judgment and belief was hostile to the
principle of open and unrestricted competition. (Hear,
hear.) What we have now to consider, however, is whe-
ther, owing to the amendment which has been introduced
into this clause, that principle is or is not really in danger.
We are not at present dealing with appointments in the
civil service, or in the non-scientific branches of the army.
We are dealing exclusively with what are known as the
scientific branches of the military service —namely, the
artil cry and engineers. The question which we have to
consider, however, is not whether the system of open com-
petition should be applied in the case of admissions to these
two branches of the service. To its adoption in those in-
stances the Government has given its assent. The framing
of the order in Council by which those admissions are to
be regulated will necessarily rest with myself, and neither I
nor the Government of which lam a member could come to
this house and say that we had fulfilled our pledges if that
order in Council wore not to sanction the adoption of this
principle of open competition in its fullest extent. (Hear.)
Nell, then, comes the question, in what consists the differ-
ence, practically speaking, between the clause as amended
by the o.her house of Parliament and as it stood when we
sent it up to that house ? Merely in the circumstance that
in the latter case the guarantee-1 use the word advisedly
—for the maintenance of the principle of free competition
was supposed to be contained in the act itself, whereas, if
the amendment of the House of Lords be adopted, it will
rest upon the security of an order in Council. Now, I say
that this supposed guarantee appeared to be, rather than
was, actually embodied in the clause as it left the House of
Commons. Tho clause then provided that candidates
" who might bo found entitled, might ha recom-
mended for appointments according to the order of their
proficiency. " Recommended ;" yes, but not appointed.
(Hear, hear.) There was nothing in the clause as it origin-
ally stood to render it compulsory on the Crown to make
those appointments. All that it made imperative was that
the Minister for India should "recommend" to the Crown
those who had passed one of theeecompetitive examinations
in the order of their success. (Hear, hear.) The clause,
therefore, afforded no legal guarantee that they would re-
ceive the appointments to which they had become entitled.
It, no doubt, gave you a moral guarantee upon the subject,
a d that gnat ante°, I contend the clause as amended con-
tains. (Hear, hear.) For myown pert I have great faith
in the system of unrestricted competition. It is of compa-
ratively recent origin, but has eeadily made its way.
Every year bring. over to it sonic new converts from the
ranks of those by whom it was at first opposed. (Hear.)
it will, I believe, prove
t oa
f cogency belief
whichm th
nay bes
itself eventually to be strcnger
than all Governments and all Parliaments—superior, in
short, to all the influences NI, bich can be brought to boar
t'legaliuntstthe it. Holding
degree
ding that solicitoussupposed
a
to belong to the machinery by which this system is ere loss
pro-
posed to be carried into effect. I would now ask the house
to consider what has been done by the supporters of the
competitive principle during the progress of the measure
under our notice. The scientific branches of the army
were not open to competition of even a modified character.
Whatever you have gained under the oiler in Council is
so much clear gain to the principle which we advocate,
and you will gain something more. Although practically
the civil service was open to competition after the pledge
given by the Govertment of 1853, yet it was not until the
present year that the pledge was embodied in an Act of
Parliament and received the sanction of the Legislature. I
think,hon. gentlemen who object to this amendment, do not
quite understand the advance that has been made in this
respect. We have for the first time declared that a Par-
lismeutary title shall be given to executive appointments.
That is a new principle, which has not hitherto prevailed
in this country. That principle you have extended to
the civil service. Let me say, in passing, that when you
have once admitted the principle and laid clown a rule
to give a Parliamentary title to ono class of offices it is
very difficult to draw a distinction that will limit its ap-
plication to the civil service only. I think, therefore,
that the advocates of the competitive system have gained
largely already. With respect to the military service,
it is simply placed upon the same footing as was the
ciuil service five years ago, when competition was esta-
blished by order in Council. Looking at that circum-
stance, believing that whether you regard it as a matter of
practice or of principle, seeing that the principle of a
Parliamentary title to executive appointments has already
been recognised by both houses, it seems to me that the
difference between that which we proposed and that which
the other house has a +opted is so small that, considering
upon how many points they have given way, and that this
neither in pr :ctice nor theory can bo called a large modifi-
cation of the principle of competition, I think wo should
be justified in accepting the amendments of the House of
Lords. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONING HAM, amidst impatient criesof "Divide,"
declared his preference of the competitive system to a
system of patronage. The manner in which the Horse
Guards' patronage was administered was not such as to
induce him to agree in increasing the patronage already
possessed by the Court. He hoped the house would insist
upon having the clause as it was sent to the other house,
and would not yield to an attempt to compel them to give
up what they considered to bo an important principle.
The house divided upon the qaestion that it should not
insist upon disagreeing with the Lords' amendment upon
clause 31, respecting the scientific branches of the army,
when there appeared—
Ayes
.............................................. 98
Noes. ........ . ........................ 53
Majority ................................. —45
The Lords' amendment was therefore adopted.
The amendment of the Lords altering the period within
which notice of instructions sent out to India to commence
hostilities should be given to Parliament from one to three
months was agreed to.
This terminated the proceedings in the Government of
India Bill so far as this house is concerned.