part 3, chapter 3.

CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812. Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had received the Roman citizenship."

_G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 17._

See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, The First.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-

The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

{475}

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people. When that result was attained, the final struggle with patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan agency. They began to see the need of some method by which fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of the great problems of the future. No government had then solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of any political action, or mere official influence, became more and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously threatened their power, unless the party system itself could be made more acceptable to the people. ... There was an abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his patronage--no way was opened by which a person of merit could get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of every port of entry to the public service, which made it tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in its ranks--subserviency to members and to ministers--and electioneering on their behalf--these were the virtues before which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole system increased. ... During the Melbourne administration, between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a condition for admission to the service, came from two very different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared that they could not do the public work with such poor servants as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation to attempt at once. These examinations--several of them being competitive--introduced by public officers in self-defence many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example, they had brought about a reform that arrested public attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher salaries were bidden for them for private service.' ... These examinations were steadily extended from office to office down to the radical change made in 1853. ... It had been provided, long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the patronage of nomination for such instruction. ... If it seems strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same influence which sent them there was used to keep them there. ... Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852 and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the government to command the respect of the more intelligent portion of the people of India, and there was a still more alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad in the army as in the civil offices. ... There was, in short, a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to save British supremacy in India. A change of system was entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students ... shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty, who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India to every British citizen. ... In 1853, the British Government had reached a final decision that the partisan system of appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial control of nominations by members of Parliament, however guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. ... The administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. ... It was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English Executive ... for the time being. The first step decided upon was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service. Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in November of the same year. ... A system of competitive examinations ... [was] recommended. ... The report was accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into effect, from which quote the following passages. {476} ... 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting by the surest of all motives--the desire a man has of bettering himself in life. ... They will have attained their situations in an independent manner through their own merits. The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the higher classes of official men. ... The effect of it in giving a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an English administration for the home government. I hardly need repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were (with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations. ... But the great feature of the report, which made it really a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was as theoretical as it was radical. ... A chorus of ridicule, indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the official and partisan places of politics. The government saw that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in which to trust the tender years of such a reform. ... The executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the people, and also requested the written opinions of a large number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon it was requested. ... About the time that English public opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official report, and before any final action had been taken upon it, the Aberdeen administration went out. ... Lord Palmerston came into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical statesman. ... Upon his administration fell the duty of deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report. ... He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of patronage. ... Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's administration advised that an order should be made by the Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

_D. B. Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain._

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States] arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens 'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. ... The civil service of these states was seriously damaged in quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public service in return, and the line which separates taxation from robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up an idea that there is something especially democratic, and therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of office with a keen zest. During the forty years between Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's ad- ministration the number of changes made in the civil service was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the spoils.' ... In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful people."

_J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, pages 261-264._

"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made [toward a reform]. ... This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it, and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil Service, such regulations as would best promote its efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may 'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil Service.' {477} In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000 asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an examination in his office. ... Under Grant's commission, open competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in the New York Post office. Although this commission labored under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by the President and his cabinet. ... The rules adopted by Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis. They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the Reform. ... Other able men took an active part in the movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. ... President Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March, 1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to Mr. Burt by the Collector. ... In 1880, Postmaster James revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office. ... When the President, desiring that these examinations should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this, competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the methods and progress of reform in other countries, President Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great Britain.' ... For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received no compensation from the Government, not even his personal expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due, also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform Associations."

_H. Lambert, The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, pages 6-10._

"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result of a conference among members of civil service reform associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children. The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of 38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87 members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due, undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was that of a Congress of which probably the members had very little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject. But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which always commands the future. ... The passage of the law was the first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement. The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and other important custom houses and post offices, without the least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party independence, that, in these chief branches of the public service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the public service to which the reformed methods apply are now included within those methods."

_G. W. Curtis, Address at Annual Meeting of the National Civil-Service Reform League. 1891._

CIVILIS, Revolt of.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).

CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

{478}

CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.

St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D. 1091-1153] ... revived the practice in the monastery of Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux, which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of the perfect monk. ... He was not a Pope, but he was greater than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the history of the Christian Church is the history of the influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

_C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12._

"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of persons who desired to join the society which could boast of so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known as the Valley of Wormwood. ... The district pertained to the bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed abbey of Clairvaux."

_H. Stebbing, History of Christ's Universal Church,