As I feared, the plan of competitive examination worked unsatisfactorily, the criteria not being the best, and the responsibility being so divided that no one is in effect answerable for an appointment made under it. The consequence of its adoption has been in many instances the rejection of men who gave promise of great usefulness, and the admission of others whose usefulness has proved very small. If no way had been open to the public service but through competitive examination, as now conducted, I cannot say what might have been my own chance of admission; since, on the plan adopted, no amount of knowledge or power in other departments is regarded as making up for deficiency in certain prescribed subjects. Under such a system neither George Stephenson nor Brindley would have passed examination as an engineer; nor, perhaps, would even Napoleon or Wellington have been admitted to any military command. The principle, if sound, must be equally applicable to manufacturing and commercial establishments; but I have heard of none that have adopted it. Indeed, a wealthy merchant lately declared (and I believe most of his brethren would agree with him) that if he had no clerks but such as were chosen for him by others, his name would soon be in the _Gazette_. I have always been of opinion that the more the appointments to the Post Office, and indeed to other public departments, are regulated on the principles ordinarily ruling in establishments conducted by private individuals, the better it will be for the public service. The question to be decided between candidates should be, I think, simply which is best fitted for the duties to be performed, and the decision should be left to the person immediately answerable for the right performance of the duty.[118] _Telegraphs._