National Republican., 1877-08-23
CJpIL SERyICE Reform IN ENG
LAND.


The eighteenth lettcr ol aATL HANu-
Ton to the editor Of the New York Tribune
Oh civil service reform contains quite mum
her oi prr's niisstaieinrnts III regard to the
prtrt,'a,i opeiatioI ~ the system IN England
which si,Onld mol lie allowed 10 go uDcon-
tr,dictc,i. The object Of the leitci Is Ia
show thni the rclWin has hc,n n failure ~,
England, and that appointments are still
made tler on account Of p,l,tic,,i and per
sonai iuvm,tisn,. The writer utterly fnils
To sustain the change, although the as..r-
tiuns she makes in the eouns of her ran,
bling letter on the subject will itav- IN the
mInds Of uniniormed prisons the impf1ss,oi,
that no silecinal reiotni hns been acnou,-
pl,shod iu that @untiy
Nearly vne half al the lettnI is taken NJ,
by An attempt 10 show that n,ru,l-rs NJ
Parliament stiil very frequently altaIu ,h-iI
seats by pauonngc aud sl-,ti"u mii'-iy
Now this Is question oi r,r, which could
best be established by the imi.lir ,r,s,rls
and by quotations IRON writers M the 20
htical condition Of England. Mrs " i,Mii-
TON, however, frst questions whether that
Soycrnment b p'iraI or better tisan es,rs,
and then proceois TO establish ha thss,ry
by quotations bon resent uovels. We ARE
well aware that modern uvvelists ltcq ueuily
add ycIy materially to the I'ower Of ui-ii
works by references 10 the political condi-
tiou vi the Countries IN which the artiuu Of
their stories Is laid, but II cannot 10 70
riously ciain,ed that such works srn h
wuieiscde,in tire di~apcsiou of p,iiticl Yncs-
tioiIs history and Official rel'oits, which ro-
cord the practical operations OF GOVERN
nent. But even f We admit that the ies-
tmony Of tho noveiists proves that seats
IN Parliament are sometimes obtained by
bribery. the msttor is wholly irrelevant ~
to the question at issue, which h ~ "a
whether real reform has been effected In
the civil service OF the British Government,
At the beginning Of tho second column oi
her article Mis- HAMILTON comes to the
merits Of tho question by citing the csss o.
Mr.. PlGOTT ~ proof nf the fact that appoint
nents sro still n,sd~ for political and par
sonal reasons In England. 1t is very trps
that Lord BEAuossFiELD was ospsnred b.,
Me Houss d Comuoos ior . supposed vio
htion Ut the rules governing the reformed
service in making this appointment That
worry vote Of oensure shown, however, thai
the existence Of strict rules upon this sub.
Dsct Is recognized by ths British Govern.
ment The binding forco Of thoss rules !,
20 we'll acknowledged that not oven party
discipline could prevent tbs House of Com.
mons from ceusliring tho Premier for q
supposed violation Of them. This 6ao,
alone conclusisely proves that aivil servics
seform Is fully established In England, and
that no violations Of 1t will be suffered ever
by thoss highest in authority.
IL turued out, however, upon investtga-
ton that tho appointment of Mr PtayrI
was not made In vtnlAtion Of tho rules gov
sruing appointments and promotions In III,
civil servica Mr.. pIsUTT WIS oaa of 81,
selected under tho rules of that service u,
possessing special Qualifications ior the posi-.
ton Of Csnnptrolies iu the Statioasry Oliica
OF tie siI u,us selsstsd be sosmet 70 be ths
best qualified, sod ~s@ accordingly sp.
pointed.
il VIVA charged that Lnrd BHAooNsFrxlr
sppointed him bocauss he was the son sl
tile Vicar Of Hughenden, the parish In
which his Lordship hAs long resided, and
that he appointed tho son beoauss he va.
nntlar obligations 10 the father for polihcs
fsvora This statement turned out - bs
antirly false. for the. fAther had given ar
tho charge Of the parish more than thirty
yeas ago, and was, while In charge OF ID
politically opposed to Lord BEAcoNsrIKLp
nnd voted against him. Mr. Piaorr had
not asked for the place, aud did not know
iHat uo was tnouRnt ot iot u, nor niM any
pnr solicited ths appointment on his be-
half u is moreover admitt-d that MIR
PIooTT IL nmin-nty we'll Yualidcd Ia dis
charge the dutir~ Of tho oiliue 10 which hs
Sns appointed Thus II will be saeu that
The example which Mi-r TIA aILroN .ates to
prove that emil Acrv,,s reform Is fsps II,
England, conciusdVeiy eataLlisi,rs directly
the contrary. Tho ssveIs rrp,oof whicl,
wns administered tD Lord BKAuUHssiELD
lor his supposed violation OF tho rules regu.
hting that seTvi,e -lluws tina they have
sakcn deep hold npOn tho ,.eSple Of that
nation, and that they viii not suffer shsn,
10 l~ violated with IMMUNITY or allow them
70 hcOnie obsolete
We eau, then, s,ili iook..to England for IN.
nruction IN rtrrd to Tits snbjeci. II l,
,rue that peer aud peasant eie ou the s,uns
Sotiug there. run-- = tho only rsst 10
tardrd, aud politi,a,l aud psr.uiul iniln'
hIces are pawerl=ss. fIoi. FrkK sas ,ixhI
xh-n In the elas,do shades Of CoruoiI VI
Nrote:
fine resulis Of he rsEosu n kndanA sro, Arst
aie paironaxs formsri, elJoysd by ntsuil,ers d
fAriiaRisni lia> brru unur-lJ done away with and
soycInmisnt employees aie nov Au0ids Of Pac.isan
nhuenee