CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1614, 4 December 1912, Page 3

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

PEOMOTION OP MINISTERS' SECRETARIES. .: Sir,—May I ask the courtesy of space for a few words of comment on your subleader in to-day's issue dealing with certain cases of promotion to high Civil Service posts? You have perhaps not allowed quite sufficiently for the fact that your source is a strongly partisan OTgan. In the first placo salaried private secretaries to Ministers—Ministers usually have four—are salectcd from the "Class I" clerks in the office by the permanent chief of that office. These clerks have got into the Civil Service by passing what is usually considered the hardest open examination in the Empire, the joint examination with the Indian Civil Service. Selection as a private secretary is a testimonial of ability from the offi'cial chief and is rightly regarded as a step to promotion; as the secretary works directly under the notice of his official and Parliamentary chiefs his ability is accurately tested. The first- instance you quote is the ap]>ointment of Mr. W. H. Clark to Ire Trade Member of the Viceroy's Council. Your authority omits- to notice that throughout the scale Indian salaries are about double those paid in England; he does not tell you that previous appointments to this particular post, both Civil Servants and business men, had been complete failures, this justifying importation of fresh blood. Further, you are informecl that Mr. Clark was secretary to the President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Clark got into ths Civil Service at the head of the list, and-was admitted by all his contemporaries to bo an exceptionally able man. He had ten years' service to his credit, and he had been to China as secretary of a Commission. Mr. LloydGeorge found him so valuable when at the Board of Trade that he obtained his transfer to the Treasury when he himself became Chancellor. Do you not think, sir, that such unique exoeriencs, coupled with great ability, justifies his appointment, not, by the way, by Mr. Llovd-George, but by Lord Morley? I do not know the facts in the other anonymous instances quoted, but I have not the least doubt that they would amply justify the promotions. The "Saturday Review" obviously does not want to know or make known the facts, but merely to make party capital. I can assure you that no Civil Servant in the Board of Trade took the viewthat Mr. Clark's promotion was a "job." The article from which you quote reads virtually as advocating that men selected as private secretaries should be given less,' rather than more, chances of promotion than other Civil Servants. If this was the case Ministers would not get, as they do ■' now, the very best brains in their office picked for them as secretaries. The late Sir IMivard Hamilton, and Sir Arthur Godley may be named as instances of old-time Ministerial private secretaries whose selection and promotion were justified by events. The "Saturday Review" applies to posts such as Commissioner, of Customs. Insurance Commissioner for Wales, and Eegistrar of the Privy Council the term "comfortable" apparently for the only reason that they are each paid a salary of ,£1201) a year. The inference which would naturally be drawn is either that the posts are sinecures, or that the men selected are inefficient.' Neither suggestion 'seems plausible. In conclusion it may be pointed out that every appointment and every promotion is scrutinised and sanctioned by the Civil Service Commission. With the principles involved in this system I believe you are cordially-in agreement; and I take it, therefore, for granted that in so far as your leader indicates sympathy with the original article it is due to the suppression of facts by the "Review," coupled with high ideals of clean administration. —I am, eto., ' ■ W. G. WICKHAM, H.M. Trade Commissioner. December 3, 1912.

[Our sympathy, with the 'original article was based on the fact_ that the'personal association between Ministers and their secretaries is' such as to give the secretaries au advantage over other members of the _ Civil Service which - may unfairly prejudice the prospects of the latter. We of course know nothing of the merits of the individual cases quoted and should not be in the least surprised to learn that most of_ the secretaries in question are.well-qualified for the posts they have been, appointed to. That, however, is not the issue. The question is whether they have, by virtue of their personal association with Ministers, secured appointment l over the heads of men equally, qualified who had prior claim, but were not lucky enough to have a personal claim on a Minister.]