Chapter V.-Summary, or Précis Writing. 108. Summarising is the process of selecting, and expressing in a single paragraph, the essential features of an extended composition, or series of papers,-e. g., a debate, a correspondence, an historical narrative, an official letter or despatch. (a) The preceding exercises on the Paragraph have depended mainly on Expansion and Enlargement. The present Chapter requires the converse process,—that of Contraction and Abridgment. 109. The writing of a Summary (or Memorandum, as it is officially called) requires that the document or passage to be summarised be in the first place carefully read over, and a brief abstract or analysis made of the most important parts; and then that these parts be written out in the form of a short narrative, which will be the summary required. The following extract from the "Report of H. M. Civil Service Commissioners," fully explains the nature and requirements both of the abstract and of the summary:— "1. The object of the ABSTRACT (schedule or docket) is to serve as an index. It should contain the date of each letter: the names of the persons by whom and to whom it is written; and, in as few words as possible, the subject of it. The merits of such an abstract are,-(1.) to give the really important point or points of each letter, omitting everything else; (2.) to do this briefly; (3.) distinctly; and (4.) in such a form as readily to catch the eye. "2. The object of the MEMORANDUM (or précis), which should be in the form of a narrative, is that any one who had not time to read the original letters might, by reading the précis, be put in possession of all the leading features of what passed. The merits of such a précis are,-(1.) to contain a concise history of the correspondence, including all that is important in its substance, and nothing that is unimportant; (2.) to present this in a consecutive and readable shape, expressed as distinctly as possible; (3.) to be as brief as is compatible with completeness and distinctness." 110. The best method of performing this exercise may be gathered from the following rules : I. Read over the whole passage or correspondence, and underline with pencil, or otherwise mark, the most important parts. II. Select these parts, and write them in the fewest possible words, as an abstract, or series of heads. III. Extend these heads in the form of short sentences. This forms the summary. IV. Number the letters or paragraphs (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the original, and place corresponding numbers before the notes or heads in the abstract, and the sentences in the summary. V. The abstract may, for reference, afterwards be thrown into the form of an index. (See § 111. IV.) 111. Example. [The essential parts in the following correspondence are here printed in I. THE CORRESPONDENCE. No. 1.-Mr Waddington to the Civil Service Commissioners. Gentlemen, Whitehall, 4th June 1860. I am directed by Secretary Sir George Lewis to inform you that he proposes to appoint Mr- at present a supplemental clerk in the Treasury, to a vacant clerkship in the office of the Receiver of Police. As Mr obtained a certificate from you in 1857, on his appointment to the Treasury, Sir George Lewis presumes it will not be necessary for him to appear before you for examination on his appointment to the Receiver's office, but he will be glad to receive your decision on the matter, and I am to request your early reply.—I am, &c. Sir, No. 2.-Mr Maitland to Mr Waddington. 7th June 1860. (1.) In reply to your letter of the 4th instant, notifying the nomination of Mr now a supplemental clerk in the Treasury, to a clerkship in the office of the Receiver of Police, and requesting to be informed whether it will be necessary for him to appear for examination; I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to state that Mr was on his nomination to his present clerkship examined in some of the subjects required for the office of the Receiver of Police, and that the Commissioners having referred to his performances, will not think it necessary to re-examine him in those subjects. There are, however, two others (history and geography) in which he was not on the former occasion examined, and in which he should therefore be examined, in order that the certificate necessary on his appointment to the junior situation to which he is now nominated may be granted. (2.) I have at the same time to state that Mr. appears, from the evidence produced on his former nomination, to be between 29 and 30 years of age, and that the ordinary limits for the situation to which he is now nominated are 17 and 25. The Commissioners, however, will be perfectly willing to accede to an extension of the limit in favour of those who have previously been in the public service, if the Receiver of Police should think fit to recommend it, and they will communicate with him on the subject. I have, &c. Sir, No. 3.-Mr Maitland to Mr Drummond. 7th June 1860. I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to acquaint you that, by letter from the Home Office, of the 4th instant, they have been informed of the nomination of Mr- now a supplemental clerk in the Treasury, to a clerkship in your department. It appears from the evidence produced by Mr -on his former nomination, that he is now between 29 and 30 years of age, and consequently ineligible under the regulations established by the late Receiver of Police, after a correspondence, which will be found in the appendix to the new report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners, however, will be perfectly willing to accede to an extension of the higher limit of age in favour of candidates who have previously been in the public service, and they would suggest for your consideration the following rule, which has been adopted by several of the public departments:-" For candidates who have been previously in the public service, the higher limit of age shall be extended to 30, provided that the candidate was under 25 when he entered the service, and has served continuously."-I have, &c. No. 4.-Mr Drummond to the Civil Service Commissioners. Gentlemen, Metropolitan Police Office, Receiver's Department, 8th June 1860. In reply to your communication of the 7th instant, I beg to state, in regard to the limit of age for candidates for clerkships in my department who have previously been in the public service, that I fully concur in the suggestion which you have made. Sir, I have, &c. No. 5.-Mr Maitland to Mr Waddington. 9th June 1860. Referring to my letter of the 7th instant, in which it was stated that the age of Mr. exceeds the maximum limit fixed for clerkships in the office of the Receiver of Metropolitan Police, but that the Civil Service Commissioner would suggest for the consideration of the Receiver whether F it would not be advisable somewhat to extend that limit where, as in the case of Mr, the candidate being in the public service had entered it before he had attained the maximum applicable to the Receiver's Office, and had served continuously;— I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to acquaint you, for the information of Secretary Sir George Lewis, that they have this morning received a letter from Mr Drummond, who acquiesces in their suggestion, and that they will therefore be prepared to examine Mr- on Tuesday next, the 12th instant, at 10 a.m., or at the same hour on any subsequent Tuesday.-I have, &c. II. THE ABSTRACT. No. 1.-Mr Waddington to Civ. Ser. Commrs. Appointment of Mr Whitehall, 4th June 1860. or, 4/6/60. Sup. Clerk in Treasury, as Clerk to Receiver of Police. He obtained certificate in 1857; need he be examined again? No. 2.-Mr Maitland to Mr Waddington. (1.) Mr 7/6/60. need not be re-examined in the subjects in which he was examined in 1857, but must be tested in History and Geography, in which he was not examined before. (2.) Mr is above 29; the max. age is 25. The Coms. will extend the limit to 30 in the case of one in public service, if the Receiver of Police agree. No. 3.-Mr Maitland to Mr Drummond. 7/6/60. Suggesting the above exception [2. (2.)] as to age, "provided the candidate was under 25 when he entered the service, and has served continuously." No. 4.-Mr Drummond to Civil Ser. Commrs. Concurring in the suggestion. No. 5.-Mr Maitland to Mr Waddington. 8/6/60. 9/6/60. Intimating Mr Drummond's concurrence, and appointing Tuesday, 12th inst. (or any subsequent Tuesday), at 10 A.M., for Mr's examination. III. THE SUMMARY. Exception to Rule for Examination and Age of Clerks in Office of Receiver No. 1. (4/6/60.) No. 2. (7/6/60.) of Police. Sir G. C. Lewis having proposed (4th June 1860) to transfer Mr from a Supplemental Clerkship in the Treasury Office, to an Assistant Clerkship in the office of Receiver of Police, the question was raised: "Whether Mr who had obtained a Civ. Ser. Certificate in 1857, need be re-examined ?" The Commissioners decided that he need be examined only in the subjects he had not been examined in before (History and Geography). But they observe that Mr is above 29, while the limit of age for the new appointment is 25. They, however, express their willingness to waive that objection in the case of one previously in the public service (provided he had entered it before 25 and had served continuously), if the Receiver of Police conNos. 3, 4. (7,8/6/60.) curred. Mr Drummond (the Receiver), having signified his concurrence, the Commissioners intimated the same, and their readiness to examine Mr the subsequent Tuesday. No. 5. (9/6/60.) on IV. THE INDEX. DATES. SUBSTANCE OF LETTERS. No. CORRESPONDENTS. 1. Mr Waddington to 4/6/60. Inquiring whether a Clerk transCiv. Ser. Coms. ferred from one Department to another need be re-examined. Mr Maitland to 7/6/60. (1.) Ans. :-Not in same subjects; 2. Mr Waddington. but in new ones. 3. Mr Maitland to 7/6/60. Submitting the above suggestion. Mr Drummond. 4. 5. Mr Drummond to 8/6/60. Concurring in suggestion. Mr Maitland to 9/6/60. Intimating the alteration, and ap- |