The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-28 00:00:00

THE GOVERNMENT AT THE CAPE.

Sir DE L. EVANS gave notice that early next ses-
sion he should call attention to the expediency of can-
tinning the present system of double government in our
African dependencies at the Cape.
JEWELS AND STARS OF THE ORDER OF THE

BATH.
Lord HOTHAM gave notice that early next session
he should move an address to the Crown praying her
Majesty would be pleased to allow the jewels and stars
of the Knights of the Bath to remain after their deaths
in the possession of their families.
MILITARY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
SCHOOL.
Sir H, VERNEY begged to ask—the Royal corn-
miesion having shown the necessity for a general Mili
tary Hospital and Medical School, and a new hospital
being about to be erected at Aldershott—would her Ma.
jesty s Government take into consideration whether this
hospital might not be used for the purpose contemplated
byG theeral Royal
PEEL—Tee comlniss
question of the establishment of
en
Hospital and Medical School is under
athGeeneralMilitaryconsideration
of the Government, and it will be
probably necessary hereafter to build an hospital at Al.
derehott, and it may be considered desirable to establish
a medical school there. No money, however, had been
voted for the purpose this year.
SHERIFFS (SCOTLAND).
Sir W. DUNBAR begged to ask the Secretary of Slate
for the Home Department whether it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government to take advantage of any
vacancies occurring in the sheriffships in Scotland, to
effect the full accomplishment of the Act 16 and 17
Vic., cap. 92, fur diminishing the number of sheriffs in
Scotland, by transferring any of the sheriffs of the
counties to be united into one sheriff tom to such other
sheritldoens as might become vacant by death or promo-
tions, and thus rave to the public revenue the salaries
payable to the former, as was contemplated at the pass-
ing of the Act 16 and 17 Vic., cap. 80, by which the
salaries of all the sheriffs in Scotland were increased !
Mr. WALPOLE—I am not aware that any such ex-
peetatien has lesen held out as has been referred to in
the question of the hon. gentleman. Tee act of parlia-
ment is quite clear, its provision being that, with refer-
ence to fourteen sherifldems held by fourteen dif-
ferent sheriffs, whenever a vacancy occurs in one,
the holder of the office in another should take the
duties on himself, so that the number of sheriffs may be
gradually reduced from fourteen to seven in the smaller
counties in Scotland. Some vacancies in the smaller
counties have occurred since the passing of the act, and
in six out of the 14 smaller counties one sheriff is dis-
charging the duties of two cc:untie., which makes a re-
duction of three out of the 14 sheriffdom.. The questien
which I suppose the noble baronet wishes to put is, whe-
ther if a vacancy occurs in one of the larger counties, the
sheriff of one of the smaller ones shall be put into the
office, so as to enable that small county to be united to
others, w.th a view to the diminution of the Lumber ?
i naey case where a sheriff of a small county is of such
known ability ac to render it advisable to promo`e him
tnoo
ta
al
da rvgi
seer
tohnee ,
crownth a treat course
not t
o select
maybethtae best
ken; brnuatnltcooaupld.
point to the larger county merely to facilit-te the redric-
dilation of the number of sheriffs in the smaller orunt
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—THE ATTORNEY-
GENERAL.
Mr. SCHNEID ER. wi ed
pet a question to t.L.
eL
hon and learned gentleman the Attorney-General which
involved a question of the breach of the privileges of the
houses. It was his intention t have brough' the matter
forward at length, but he did not yeah to stand between
the proceeding with the India Bill, and he should con.
tent himself with asking a question of the hon. and
learned gentleman, and bring the matter before the

house on Friday. He begged to ask the boo, and
learned gentleman whether in his capacity as Attorney.
General, and in the discharge of his duty to her Majesty,
he had received any fee in reference to any bill in the
discussion of which in the house he had taken part, and
on which he voted on a divir,ion ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It has been the
practice from very early times, whenever a bill is brought
ihto Parliament, whether it is brought forward by any
department of the Government, or is a bill brought be-
fore the house at the instance of an individual member,
which involves any question of the rights of the crown
to any property of any description, to submit the
bill, or the clauses which relate to the rights of
the crown, to one or other, or both of the law
officers of the crown, the Attorney-General and
the Solicitor-General. That practice is well known
—must be well known to the members of every
Government who have sat in the house in the present
century, and must be and is known to the hon. gentle-
man who put the question. During the present session
two bills, one of which was recently before the house,
directly affected the rights of the Crown to property of
considerable value. Those bills, in conformity with
ancient practice, were submitted to the Attorney-Goneral
and I believe to my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor
General, under the usual circumstances and with the
usual fees attached to them ; and certainly and un-
doubtedly in the discussion on that bill the Attorney-
General and the Solicitor-General, as they felt bound in
duty to the Crown to do, did take part, and in one, two,
and, I believe, three divisions, I myself, and I believe
rey hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General took
part. (Hear, hear.)
THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, who had a motion on the paper
to call attention to the subject of the Wellington
monument, appealed to the Government whether he was
not entitled to bring it on. He had given every facility
to the Government business on the underitauding that
he should have an opportunity of bringing the subject
forward.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is
always agreeable to me to meet the wishes of the hon.
members on both sides of the house, and I have endea-
voured to do so. I put it to the house whether the ap-
peal male to me is reasonable ? (Rear.) I should not
be doing my duty if I did not ask the house to proceed
with the Lords' amendments to the India Bill.

INDIA BILL.
The consideration of the Lords' amendments was pro-
ceeded with.

EXAMINATION OF THE MEDICAL SERVICE.
On clause 51,
Sir H. RA WLINSON objected to the amendment.
The clause provided for the competitive examination of
the civil service and the medical service. By the amend-
ment the !atter 7:13 and ;hi uiedical service
became nominative. Practically there was now no cora-
petive examination for the medical service, for in the re-
cent instances the number of candidates did not equal
the number of appointments ; there were very few ap-
plications and the appointments were not taken up. At
the same time it was the wish of the house that the sys-
tem of competitive examination should be kept up for
the medical service.

Lord STANLEY said the question of competitive
examination could be discussed oli the next clan,e. Ee
imagined the examination of the civil service would ap-
ply to the medical service also.

- The amendment was agreed to.
On the amendment to clause 32, which altered the
clause as sent up by the Commons, extending competi-
tive examination to all branches of th e military service,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he understood the noble
lord wished the house to agree to the amendment of the
Lords ; if so, there oueht to be some explana ion on the
subject, for it seemed at first sight that a❑ extraordinary
omission had been made in the cause by the Lords. It was
his wish. and that of other [umbers of that house, teat the
system of competitive examinatio❑ should be more gene-
rally introduced, so as to go beyond the civil service, and
ernbracethe different branches of the army. The noble lord
who had always declared hitn+elf favourable to the prin-
ciple of competitive examination, expressed his readi-
ness to include that principle in the bill ; but he ex-
pressed an opinion that it would be better in the first
instance not to introduce it in all branches of the army,
but to confine competitive examination to the civil ser-
vice and the scientific branches of the army—namely,
the artillery and engineers. That was a fair proposal ou
the part of the r•oble lord, and it was taken as the inten-
tion of the Government. But tt e Lards, while t ley had
left in all the words relating to the examination, had left
out the words which gave the persons who had under-
gone the examination a security that they should receive
the reward of their labours, and they gave a power to
the Crown to put an end to the system of competitive
examination, for it was obvious that such examinations
would be of no value unless the best men obtained the
reward:: they sought. If that was to be the case the dis-
appointment would be so great that it was evident
that no one would present himself for examination. It
would, he thought, be necessary to restore the words
which had been omitted. He objected to leaving this
matter at the disere•.ion of the Minister of the Crown.
The noble lord was in favour of the principle of compe-
titive examination, but another Secretary for India
might be opposed to it, and would not carry it out. He
thought the words in question should be restored, and
shoull meet the amendment with a negative.
Lord STANLEY said the noble 1,-,rd had done justice,
not only to himself, but to the present Government,
when he said that they were favourable to the principle
of competitive examination. He had supported that prin-
ciple five years ago, when it was les+ understood and less
popul,%r than now. He had not altered his view, and it
had beau his pleasure, as well as his duty, to extend that
principle to the scientific branches of the arcey in India.
If the proposal to alter the elau,e had in his mind de-

stroyed the right to the preeervation of diet principle,
he would far rather have reeigued the situetien which
he held than have agreed to it. (Hear.) But he thought
that it would not have that effect, and be would explain
in a few words how the matter stood. If the house
eccepted the amendment of the Loris, it would only
have the question of competitive examination for the
civil service on the same footing as it stood in 1853,
when the then President of the Board of Control intro-
duced a bill to sanction the principle of competition for
the civil service, but that only gave power to the Crown
to establish the system by order in council. If the Lords'
amendment was adopted by the house, there would be
no alteration, and the right would exist in the same man-
ner as ever. The change he proposed was to recognise
directly by act of Parliament the principle of competitive
examination, instead of by order is council When
that was proposed, it was met by the olijection that it
was not a constitutional course to give an administrative
and executive act a parliamentary ti, le, and he believed
that was correct. There was no instance in which a
parliamentary ti le had been given. As to the obj-ction
of the noble lord that it was in the power of a Mini-ter
for India to put an end to the system, the security
against that was that the order in council carrying out
the system roust be superseded by another, waich must
be laid before that house, which bad pronounced in
favour of the system of competitive examination, and
which it could hardly be in the power of any Minister to
resist. What he relied upon was the necessity of an ap-
peal to the house before any alteration or ieodification of
the system could take place. His belief was that whe-
ther the words were omitted as now proposed, or re•
tained, the principle of unrestricted competition was
eqnally safe, and certain to be mairita ned.
Sir D. NORREYS supported the aim ndrnent.
Sir J. GRA EIANI said if his noble friend (Lord John
Russell) divided, he shou'd divide with him He had
the utmost confidence in the assurenca of the noble lord
the President of the Board of Control, because he well
remembered the vote given by him in 1853 in favour of
competitive examination. The noble lord seemed to think
there was no practical difference between an order in
council and a staturable recognition, which was part
of the bill sent to the Lords. He differed with the
noble lord altogether. It was a difficult thing to re-
peal an act of Parliament, but an • order in council
might be dealt with by a single vote. Sir J. Lawrence,
whose recent experience of civil appointments under com-
petition was so favourable, earnestly desired that the
principle should be extended to the scientific branches of
the army. On thi- point he was able to appeal to autho•
rity, experience, and the decision of the House of Com-
mon, and could see no reason for the alteration which
bad been male by the Lords. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WA.LPOLE said the question raised was, whe-
ther the house wished to tie up within the four corners
of an act of Parliament a system which, under certain
circumstances, it might he desirable to alter or modify.
Teat was the danger to be apprehended from the inser•
tion of such a clause. The security now given for the
competitive system was as great a security as could be
given short of Parliain -ntary legislation—gamely, that
all regulations made eh ,old hit laid on the taele within
14 days after the meeting of Parliament. The power of
continuing competitive exitinivation was as complete as
words could make it, suiiiict to this proviso, that the
house should retain the pu ver of considering whether
under all circumstances such regulations might or might
not be reasonably altered, or modified. The right hon.
gentleman (Sir J. Graham) was a great constitutional
authority, and if. he were sitting on the ministerial
benches he would say that nothing was so unadvisable
with reference to Crown appointments as to deprive the
minister, who was responsible for such appointeaente, of
the power of taking that course with reference to the
appointin3hts which might be desirable. If the words
were retained that responsibility would be taken away,
and no alteration could be made without another act of
altogether
Parliament. Wean)
gitivfteno,:epn to disereti, tn
Mr. WILSON said the argument of the right hon.
• gentleman eilr. Walpole) amounted to this, that the
gea et
frivol (Lord J. Ru-sell)
(t,nti principlee.:no )
objectooof no)—or
it)fhmehpPcePltaujitsol etamwwe(niautslBdt''o' bebreed l ,et. Hs shoo dce r-
tra:ll:tili)YeesvSwe Oth.siL) withwlCe rieTheOixsnanm-IG'ibnEeedN
rRA appointments
remarked w thatuldh theave
the same security which they at present possessed,
namely, the security of an order in council, until it ;
should be revoked cr modified, and that could not be
done without inviting the opinion of the douse of Com-
mons. He ventured to think that would be a perfectly
satisfactory security for the future, as it had been in
times past. All parties were agreed about the principle
of competitive examination. But as the clause left the
House of Co:umoos the appointments were vested in the
Crown, whilst the next line provided that the appoint-
ments should be under a parliamentary title, inde-
pendent of the Crown. That was a constitutional oh-
jection, and on that ground he siiiit:)er'oel
amendment. (Hear, hear.)
Sir E. COLEBROOKE had no confidence in the lan- !
;nage held by the President of the Board of Control as
to the watchfulness of fu llf e Parliaments. It was against
the abuse of future Parliaments that the house bad to
guard, and he treated the house would reject the Lords'
amendment.•

Mr. V, SMITR thought the principle of competitive