The next important step was the appointment, early in 1895, of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Civil Service, which reported that the Act of 1884, under which a Civil Service Board of five persons had been constituted, had failed in its purpose, because the Board consisted usually of men who had other duties to perform and had not the power to fix the salaries or control the service, and { 44} because the right was reserved to ministers in special cases to make appointments without either examination or probation. The Commissioners found that, owing to the absence of any well-ordered system of classification, the grossest inequalities and anomalies existed in the salaries of offices attached to different departments or even to the same department, as, to take an extreme case, that, in the department of the Government Architect the official who designed the Crown Lands office and supervised its erection was receiving less remuneration than the principal messenger; and that, while the service contained many high-minded and able officials, there were cases where incompetency, neglect of duty, and even drunkenness had formed no bar to continued employment. In accordance with their recommendations, founded on the belief that Parliament could not directly cope with the matter, an Act was passed in 1895 which constituted a Public Service Board of three persons, to be appointed for a period of seven years in the same way, and with the same securities for independence, as the Railway Commissioners. The Board was charged with the duty of making a thorough investigation, which was periodically to be repeated, into the working of each department, and of fixing the number, grade, and salary of the officials. Future appointments and promotions were to be made by the Governor in Council, upon a certificate of the Board, subject to the regulations in regard to competitive { 45} examinations and an obligatory period of probation upon entrance into the service. As the Commission had reported that it should be possible to effect an annual saving of a quarter of a million, special importance attached to the provisions which enabled the Board to dispense with the services of those who could not usefully and profitably be employed, such persons to receive gratuities on a fixed scale upon their retirement. The Board were sitting during my stay in Sydney and had to suffer from the open hostility of those who had been affected by their decisions and from abusive correspondence in the press. Their impartiality was impugned, and they were charged with allowing themselves to be influenced by the wishes of Ministers; but when the unpleasant task of retrenchment has been completed, they will doubtless carry on a work of practical utility unhampered by criticisms and accusations.