success which has attended that system in the country of its birth is
the strongest argument which has been urged for its adoption here.

The fact should not, however, be overlooked that there are certain
features of the English system which have not generally been received
with favor in this country, even among the foremost advocates of
civil-service reform.

Among them are:

1. A tenure of office which is substantially a life tenure.

2. A limitation of the maximum age at which an applicant can enter
the service, whereby all men in middle life or older are, with some
exceptions, rigidly excluded.

3. A retiring allowance upon going out of office.

These three elements are as important factors of the problem as any of
the others. To eliminate them from the English system would effect a
most radical change in its theory and practice.

The avowed purpose of that system is to induce the educated young men of
the country to devote their lives to public employment by an assurance
that having once entered upon it they need never leave it, and that
after voluntary retirement they shall be the recipients of an annual
pension. That this system as an entirety has proved very successful in
Great Britain seems to be generally conceded even by those who once
opposed its adoption.