OPEN COMPETITION IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5030, 8 May 1877, Page 3

OPEN COMPETITION IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

_ « (From the Mornhiy Post.) Mr. Trevelyan's motion for tho extension of the principle of open competition for first appointments in the Foreign Offlco and tho Diplomatic Service was yesterday rejected by a majority of one hundred and fifty-nine to one hundred and twelve. No one can doubt t'jat competition, so far as it has been adopted, is a very great improvement upon the system of patronage. On that point there is a general agreement, and there aro not many persons who will question the soundness of Lord Percy's assertion that it would be as impossible to return to the system of patronage in making appointments to tho public servico as it would bo to restore the system of purchase in the army. Open competition has been tried Civil Service and in the Indian Service. It is now the rule in every public department, with the exception of the two departments embraced by Mr. Trevelyan's motion. It has had tho effect of converting tho public servico into a profession open to all comers who have sufficient training and ability to carry oil tho prizes it offers them. In this respect it has given a stimulus to education and an in>

centive to ambition which have exercised a healthy influence both upon the country and on the public service. But it has done even more than this. By putting an end to patronage it haß done much to purify the representation of the country. Members of Parliament are no longer under the obligation of bribing their constituents by obtaining places for their sons, nor are the members of the Government subjected to the necessity of conciliating their supporters in tho House of Commons by giving appointments to their proteges. But though all this is true, and though there can be no doubt that the revolution which has taken place of late years has been productive of good results, it does not follow that it would be advisable to carry out the system of open competition to the extent which Mr. Trevelyan desires. That system has had no stronger advocates than Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have been earnest in their support of it, and it may be presumed that if they saw their way to extending it still further, they would not hesitate to do so. The Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service present difficulties which must be duly considered before they are subjected to the system of open competition, and it is extremely doubtful whether it can ever be safely applied to them. In the Foreign Office competition is already in force, though only to a limited extent. There was much force in Sir H. D. Wolff's remarks that as the work of the officer is confidential, appointments can only be made with safety by leaving it to the Secretary of State to select the candidates who are to compete for vacant places. That is the plan upon which appointments in the Foreign Office are now made. In the Diplomatic Service the difficulties are still greater. When Dr. Playfair speaks of making the whole public service the inheritance of the country, and not of a class, he overlooks the fact that appointments in the Diplomatic Service must, under any circumstances, be given not only to a very limited number of men, but to men who possess special requirements. In the first place, the Diplomatic Service holds out very slight pecuniary attractions. For the first two years there is no payment at all. In the third year the salary is only £l5O, and the men arc exceptionally fortunate who, after four or five years' service, receive ' £IOO a year, or who, after sixteen or seventeen years' service, come into the receipt of £7OO. But appointments in the Diplomatic Service are still further narrowed by the importance of the duties which those who are attached to it have to perform, Nothing can be more certain than the fact that competition, so far as it has been carried out, does not always secure the most fitting men. Sir George Bowyer mentioned three cases yesterday in which it has led toabsurd results. The first was the case of a commission which required the services of a land surveyor. Tho commissioners found a candidate admirably suited to the duties of that office, and they appointed him. But no sooner had they done this than they were informed that they had exceeded their right, and that . the person whom they had selected must stand an examination on a variety of other subjects than that upon which alone they had need of his services. The two other cases mentioned by Sir George Bowyer were equally significant in showing the absurdity into which the system of competition may occasionally fall, and they bore pertinently on the question before the House. It is not by a competitive examination that the capabilities of a candi- : dato to serve the country in the "delicate and difficult department of diplomacy may be fairly tested. He may beat his competitors in his familiarity with international law, in his acquaintance with treaties, and in his knowledge of modern languages. But it by no means follows from these premises that Jle will have the social good breeding, or the tact and. judgment in dealing with men which are the paramount qualifications that a member of the Diplomatic Service ought to possess, and withr out which he is worse than useless. The. attache's of an embassy must be in every respect in harmony with the Ambassadors under which they serve. To talk of making the Diplomatic Service the inheritance of the country is an absurdity. We might just as well throw open the appointment of Ambassadors to competition.

Mr. Trevely.in contended that those who opposed his motion were bound to show that the experiment of open competition, so far as it lias been made, has failed. That is not so. A principle which is applicable to the Civil Service, to the army, or to the Indian Service, is not necessarily applicable to departments 'which are of a totally different character. Turning Mr. Trovelyan's arguments against himself he was bound to show that the Diplomatic Service, under the existing system of. appointments, is so insufficiently performed that the change which he advocates is imperatively required. There was not the slightest indication in his speech that he believes anything of the kind. Why, then, should so radical an alteration as he proposes be adopted? There was a sound reason for putting an end to the system of patronage in the services in which it has been abolished, and for throwing them open as a stimulus to the energy and ambition of the youth of the country. But in the case of the Foreign Office, and especially the Diplomatic Service, the argument for open competition has much more to be said against it than can be said in its favor. Principles are good only to the extent to which they are applicable. To press them beyond that point is giving them a baneful instead of a beneficial character.