hydra-headed monster of favouritism and jobbery by the selfacting expedient of open competition. It was, however, a cause which, while it gravely alarmed the classes,' did not appeal to the masses'; and even Lowe's energy and genius found the reform of the English Civil Service an insuperable task.

Apart from India, indeed, although commissions had sat and reports had been drawn up, nothing practical was attempted until 1870, when Lowe was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an Order in Council was issued directing the principle of open competition to be applied to the appointments in the Civil Service of this country. The author of The Life and Times of Queen Victoria observes that Mr. Lowe 'was credited with having influenced one decision of the Ministry which was extremely popular in the country-their decision to throw the whole Civil Service, with the exception of the Foreign Office, open to competition like the Civil Service of India. This heavy blow at privilege was struck on June 4, when the Queen signed the Order in Council, which gave rich and poor alike the same passport to the service of the State, and relieved members of Parliament from the annoyance of being pestered for "nominations" by aggressive constituents.'

It is not proposed to deal here with the question of Lord Sherbrooke's attempted reform of the English Civil Service, which, from a variety of causes the chief being his own inability to give the requisite time and attention while Chancellor of the Exchequer to so difficult a matter-proved ineffectual. The question of the Indian Civil Service was on a totally different footing. In this case the law was quite clear; and the grievances of the civilians, which Mr. Cotterell Tupp brought under the notice of Lord Sherbrooke, were of so definite and undeniable a character, that the English Parlia

1 See Report of the Select Committee on Civil Service Expenditure. Parliamentary Paper, 352, 1873.

ment and Government were at once forced to acknowledge them when pressed by so doughty a champion.

6

Mr. Cotterell Tupp arrived in England, in May 1874, on furlough (after twelve years' residence in India), entrusted with a mission to bring to the notice of Parliament and the public the grievances under which the members of the Civil Service, particularly in Northern India, were suffering. He naturally turned to the member for the University of London, of which he himself was a graduate, knowing that Mr. Lowe was, as he expressed it, the chief author and steadfast supporter' of the competitive system, under which so many of the aggrieved officials, like himself, had gone out to India. The specific grievance that Mr. Tupp brought under Mr. Lowe's notice was that the Local Governments of the different provinces in India were overriding the India Act of 1853 by filling appointments with uncovenanted or military protégés; in writing he enclosed a letter to the editor of the Times on the 'Bengal Famine and the Bengal Civil Service,' asking his correspondent to use his influence to get it published. Mr. Lowe replied that he had no influence with the Times; and that it would be necessary to show what specific grievances existed before impartial persons could be interested, much less convinced. This Mr. Cotterell Tupp proceeded to do in a very able letter of considerable length, to which he received a brief but encouraging response.

The Right Hon. Robert Lowe to A. Cotterell Tupp, Esq. Sherbrooke, Caterham: Dec. 14, 1874 Sir, I think you have made out a good prima facie case, and that you have a right to claim from me any assistance which I may be able to give you. Something similar is showing itself in our Civil Service.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

R LOWE.

In reply to a further communication he added (December 24):

'I have no doubt that the best course open to you is to seek an interview with Lord Salisbury and to lay your case fully before him. You may, if you please, tell him that this was my advice to you. I shall be in London next month, when I shall be very happy to see you if your application has not proved successful.'

'From January 1875 to the following October,' adds Mr. Tupp, Mr. Lowe wrote me no less than twenty-seven letters on this subject; and this in addition to seeing me constantly, both at his own house in Lowndes Square and at the House of Commons. I used to see him always once a week; and during May and June twice and three times a week. He gave up a large portion of his time and unceasing energy and effort to our cause during the whole of the year 1875.'

Lord Sherbrooke's correspondence at the time amply discloses his disinterested zeal in this cause. Nor, though a leader of the Opposition, did he take up the matter in a partisan spirit with a view of damaging the Government. His aim throughout was to redress a grievance, not to make political capital out of it. He himself saw Lord Salisbury and explained the circumstances of Mr. Tupp's mission to him; and subsequently, in a letter to that gentleman, he expressly states that 'Lord George Hamilton seems very well disposed,' adding: 'I am in no hurry to press the matter, because we are really at the mercy of the Government of India, the people here being very well disposed. I wish we could hit upon some self-working plan, for I feel sure that anything left to the discretion of local authorities will inevitably relapse into job again.'

The following letter shows how thoroughly he had identified himself with the aggrieved Indian civilians.

The Right Hon. R. Lowe to A. Cotterell Tupp, Esq.

34 Lowndes Square: May 5, 1875

My dear Mr. Tupp, I have spoken to Lord George Hamilton, who very frankly admits your grievance. It appears that after

your deputation, Lord Salisbury wrote to Lord Northbrook, and that he is now expecting an answer. I think, therefore, that we shall do wisely to wait till we get the answer. There are yet three months more of the session, and it would be a great pity to lose the chance (not a bad one, I should think) of settling the matter amicably by pushing on a discussion in which the only answer would be that the matter is now before the Governor-General. We must always remember that, if we go a step beyond remonstrance, we are sure to be defeated by a large majority.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT LOWE.

On May 12, at the conferring of degrees of the University of London, Lowe, as the Parliamentary representative, made a speech in which he very strongly impugned the conduct of the Government of India in appointing other persons to the posts reserved by law for the Civil servants appointed by open competition. This speech, as may be seen by a glance at the contemporary London newspapers, attracted a good deal of attention, and he followed it up by a letter headed 'Competitive Appointments,' which appeared in the Times of May 19. On May 24, Lowe asked a question in the House of Commons as to whether the Secretary of State would take speedy and efficient measures to redress the wrongs which the Government of the North-Western Provinces had admitted to have been inflicted on the civilians of those provinces. Lord George Hamilton replied that the Government of India admitted that the civilians' contention was in the main borne out by facts, and that they proposed as a remedy that the claims of civilians should be preferentially considered whenever it was possible. Mr. Lowe then gave notice that he would call the attention of the House to this subject on going into Committee of Supply and move a resolution. On June 7 Mr. Lowe asked a second question in the House as to whether the Government had arranged with the different administrations of India, rules of procedure by which the preferential claims of civilians should be invariably considered; whether the Under Secretary

of State would lay such arrangement before the House, and whether there was any objection to have the matter referred to a select committee. Lord George Hamilton replied that these rules of procedure had not been received from India, but that the Viceroy had directed a special inquiry into the subject. Lord George added that 'It would not in the opinion of the Secretary of State be expedient to appoint a select committee, as the matter required minute and thorough local knowledge.' Mr. Lowe then placed a notice of motion on the books of the House, to be taken on going into Committee of Supply, calling attention to the position of civilians, and himself moving for a select committee.

In refusing a select committee, the Government relied on their majority, but here, in a very literal sense, they were reckoning without their host. For when, after much waiting, the motion came on on the afternoon of June 29, the Indian civilians had a regular field-day. Mr. Lowe opened the debate with a speech of great ability, showing all his old mastery over the intricate subject of the civil and military government of India. He was cleverly replied to by Lord George Hamilton on behalf of Lord Salisbury and the Government, in a speech that would have been admirable if the usual party majority had been present to endorse its official reasoning by their votes. Mr. Disraeli, who did not arrive till about four o'clock, promptly saw, as the debate went on, that Lowe's motion for a select committee was supported by some of the most prominent Conservatives in the House, and that there was quite a possibility of its being carried. Like the old tactician that he was, he let the clever Under-Secretary talk on, while he came to terms with the enemy. He sent a whip across to assure Mr. Lowe that if he would withdraw his motion at the end of the debate, the Government would take up the matter and see that the civilians got justice. Although Mr. Lowe, at the moment when Disraeli's ambassador came to him, had a clear majority in the House, he too was a sufficiently practised