The History of the Civil Service
Sir Humphrey: Well, Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one time with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. (Series One, Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall, Yes, Minister BBC2 1980 to 1984)
The Civil Service is so much taken for granted in this country of the UK, that people assume that it has grown up naturally, like the grass on the Downs or the trees on Hampstead Heath. That is not the case, which can be seen by comparing with the Civil Services of other countries, where officials have legal powers, or where advancement in official life depends on political connexions, that is, meaning a link or association between two or more things, but indirectly that being a connection.
The Civil Service in this country of the UK, has in fact, developed in a highly artificial manner, like a tree pruned and trained against a wall. Some knowledge of this process is needed by anyone who is considering the Civil Service as a career.
Until the last quarter of the 18th century there was no systemic civil service. But there were four embryos: the officials who worked on central finance (the Treasury); the group of agencies concerned with defence; the Customs – which until the 20th century was the only governmental organization, except the Post Office, to have agencies outside London; and those who worked for the Secretaries of State dealing with internal, external, and colonial affairs.
The Younger Pitt (1759–1806), and the Utilitarian Reformers who came after him, can be regarded as the founders of the Civil Service as we know it. Their objective, which they achieved, was to get rid of the idea that office under the Crown was primarily a way of providing people lucky enough to get it with a salary, and to ensure that where a salary was paid the person who received it actually worked. It took more than a generation for the old free-holders, who had brought jobs, which in many cases they did not personally perform, to die out.
The age of Utilitarian Reforms led gradually to an administrative climax in the changes associated with the names of two people: Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859) and G.M. Trevelyan (1876–1962).
Macaulay's political writings are famous for their ringing prose and for their confident, sometimes dogmatic, emphasis on a progressive model of British history, according to which the country threw off superstition, autocracy and confusion to create a balanced constitution and a forward-looking culture combined with freedom of belief and expression. This model of human progress has been called the Whig interpretation of history.
Whilst many of Trevelyan's writings promoted the Whig Party, an important British political movement from the 17th to the mid-19th centuries, as well as its successor, the Liberal Party. Whigs and Liberals believed the common people had a more positive effect on history than did royalty, and that a democratic government would bring about steady social progress.
Whig·gish ˈ(h)wi-gish. known use from 1684, 1. : characteristic of Whigs or Whiggery. 2. : of, relating to, or characterized by a view which holds that history follows a path of inevitable progression and improvement, and which judges the past in light of the present.
These changes created the framework of the modern Civil Service by laying down rules about how officials should be recruited, and what should be provided for them when they left. Hence the absence of any ‘spoils system’ by which appointments go to the nominees of those who are in power.
The effect of these reforms was to make the staffs of the various departments, which till then had had a great deal of independence and variety, into an integrated service. Although this is a brief account of a history and tradition which is still moving through important changes. The tempo may well quicken in coming years as the Civil Service adapts itself to the ever-increasing integration of our highly complex society.
What is certain, however, is that the traditions and history one finds in the Civil Service today is not complete. A period of comparative stability between the wars, which lasted long enough to allow people to form an established picture, has come to an end. There are many more chapters to be added – chapters which will, perhaps, differ considerably from those which have preceded them.
WHAT IS A CIVIL SERVANT?
This article is impressionistic: neither exact nor deep. It is intended to give a picture of a necessary, interesting and developing profession, about which much is said, but little is understood. Writing it has shown me how difficult it is to take an objective view of one’s own profession. What I’ve tried to avoid is cosiness (the Civil Service is far from snug, if it ever was); an impression of ‘effortless superiority’ (it has been achieved in the past, but it is no longer the important thing), and excessive technicality. Because the idea that administration is an amateur business is still strong in this country. It is an idea that does great harm to those who think of following administration as a career.
And yet heads will still wag and say ‘we know quite well, for all this modesty, that the civil servants really run the country’. It is true that without a civil service the country could not be run. But that is not the same as saying civil servants run it – any more than waiters run a restaurant, though without them the restaurant could not run.
On the whole, the civil servant does not make choices; he presents them in analytic form. He does not make precedents; he applies them. He does not create events: he reacts effectively to them. He does not decide what the future will hold: he works out what is probable on different assumptions. As stated "– impartially, objectively, honestly and with complete integrity. That is what we do." (Darren Tierney, Director General, Propriety and Constitution Group, Cabinet Office, 2024). And as Mike Clancy, Prospect General Secretary (2024) states: "Valuing public services means valuing public servants. But it’s not just about the cuts, or the low pay, it's also about respect and honesty."
In civil service life, as in other kinds of life, what has to be done is often the only thing there is to do, but it takes a certain amount of thought to decide what it is. The seeker for direct power would be ill-advised to choose the Civil Service as a career.
It is not the making of decision but the making of new ideas, that provides the deepest satisfaction for civil servants. Invention, innovation, even extemporization, are the real demands on the mind.
It has been said that the civil servant has an objection to every solution, and it is probably true that he sees the dis-advantages in anything more quickly than the advantages. By training and habit he is a critic and a conscience. It is his job to analyse consequences and point them out. The most serious professional sin of a civil servant is to flatter what he is asked to consider.
In technical terminology, it is far graver to under-estimate cost than to over-estimate: a good financial official is far more likely to say, ‘this will cost you more than you think, so you must have less of it’, than ‘this costs too much’.
No doubt the permanence of the Civil Service gives a stability to the State, which it would not have otherwise. But the shape and outlook of the Civil Service must change with society, and it is clear that very great changes will take place in the Civil Service in coming years. What they will be I do not know. But the more fully stretched a society is – and it seems to me that our society will be more and more fully stretched – the more administration it seems to require.
Coming years are likely to repeat this pattern. Severe demand will be made on every side for skilled manpower and womanpower. Yet the tasks of the Civil Service and the demand for administrators to deal with the complexities of modern society will continue to grow.
Must we then, in despair, say that being a civil servant is just a legal, technical question, the arbitrary result of rules and history? If so, there would be little point in writing this article. Just as a point has no magnitude, people with a merely technical position have no world. An article about such a Civil Service would have no design one could point to. It would be just a list of jobs to which certain condition of service were attached.
This would not only be dreary. It would deny the idea – solid but imprecise – that comes into the ordinary person’s mind when the words ‘civil servant’ are uttered. This idea cuts through all those complications with their contrasts between professionalism and legal status and relates to a person who is concerned, in one way or another, with the central government administration. Concerned, I mean, not with general ideas, but in the context of what is actually happening. Whatever a civil servant’s Department, and whatever his rank, he is dealing with real situations not theoretical problems; and he does so with the guidance of a policy which he may help to form but which is none the less binding on him.
The Civil Service principle will notice – should notice – a slip of fact in the draft of a memorandum prepared by the Permanent Secretary for the Minister. It is not my objective to be idyllic about the Civil Service; and it very important not to be so, for two reasons.
Firstly, the work of many civil servants – apart from the civil service flavour all being in it together, which I am trying to convey – is not really very different from the sort of work people do in many other large organizations. Even administration, which I suppose most people think of as the typical civil servant’s job, is not peculiar to Government. Goodness only knows it is needed in industry, in business, in almost any co-ordinated human activity. It consists, fundamentally in making suitable arrangement to further whatever is in hand. Women running household exercise many of the administrator’s skills.
Recommended by LinkedIn
The second reason is that the Civil Service is not only subject to change – all professions would claim to be this – but is not master of the changes it undergoes. There are, of course, trends of opinion in the Civil Service itself about how it should develop and adapt to a changing world. Many of these opinions find their outlet through the various professional associations of civil servants, and others are deeply in the heads of the individuals' conviction. But none are decisive, or even very influential, for the way the Civil Service develops.
The demands of society itself determine the changing shape and atmosphere of the Civil Service. The members of the Service – like people in other lines of business – may be convinced that the old ways are best; they must change with the times just the same. They have not the alternative of going out of business, like people in private life.
The main feature of government (and the Civil Service is the four-fifths of the government iceberg below the waterline) is that by its very nature it cannot go out of business. This has its advantages; but it also means continuous change.
But whatever eternal truths there may be about the Civil Service the most important of them is that the civil servant should be adaptable, and avoid the cardinal official sin of trying to enforce drills he has learned, regardless of their relevance. It is bad administration, and a source of personal unhappiness to anyone who attempts it.
Or as stated: "We are at the centre of the democratic process and it is only the Civil Service that can provide the essential continuity and support that is needed. We are the people who are supporting the democratic process to happen - that’s something to be proud of - so try and enjoy it!" (Darren Tierney, Director General, Propriety and Constitution Group, Cabinet Office)
So those who say civil servants are our masters – a mysterious ‘them’ who are both inaccessible and capricious – are wrong. The civil servant, according to his position, exercises power and is concerned in decisions which may be important to great numbers of people. This is really another way of saying that the authority of the civil servant is delegated, and not personal. The decisions he makes aim to be correct in the framework for which the power has been conferred. The commonest reason for friction between a civil servant and the public is not abuse of power but lack of power to make an exception.
This possession of a power that is delegated is what makes the civil servant proverbially cautious. Just because in the ordinary way he will not have to take the full rap for a mistaken or unfortunate decision, he avoids risks. It may be unpleasant to reap the results of one’s own errors in loss of business or reputation. It is still more unpleasant to have concerned in a decision which affects the reputation of someone else. Gambling with one’s own money maybe silly. Gambling with other people’s money is wrong.
The person who wants to have a direct and visible influence on public events would be wrong to choose the Civil Service as a career. With patience a civil servant may find himself in a position to shape some piece of legislation or administrative arrangement and be its genuine, but anonymous, author. Pieces of work like this can last for many decades, but only a few people, probably, will ever know that ‘this was so and so’s idea – he put it through’. Very rarely – as with P.A.Y.E. – does the authorship become known.
The business of a civil servant then, is done as part of an organisation. This does not mean that civil servants are less colourful than other people – some of them are passionate, some are eccentric. The idea of a civil service ‘type’ hardly corresponds with reality. But there is a civil service style, set up by this common bond.
The common bond affects most strongly the civil servants who are nearest the centre of affairs. For at any moment, the apparently dim spark of the most remote and routine office may be puffed into glowing embers of some sudden draught down the corridors of power.
So it would give a very imperfect idea of civil service life at any level, or in any speciality, if particular groups were ignore. The idea that each official, like a mole in his burrow, pursues a narrow allotted task, is the most misleading notion about Whitehall, that has ever been propagated. One of the highest skills of a Civil Servant is the knowledge of how responsibility is distributed, and what skilled resources can - and should - be brought to bear on any problem.
GENERALIZERS
Like any other large organization, the Civil Service is divided broadly into specialists and general purpose people. The specialists have professional or occupational labels – lawyers, doctors, architects. The generalizers do not. They are people who are thought of as typical civil servants, because they are nothing else as well. They are the line regiments of the Civil Service.
They are divided into three main groups, or classes, sometimes called ‘Treasury Classes’ because they are common to the whole Civil Service and their ranks, pay, and conditions are fixed centrally by the Treasury. These classes are known by rather misty names of ‘Administrative’, ‘Executive, and ‘Clerical’.
The theory of the 'Executive Class' is that it is concerned with management and the carrying out of existing policy, not with the formation of new policy. But since new policy depends to a very great extent on experience of what is happening to the old one, and politics is anyway - as Bismarck said - the science of the possible, not a matter of first principles, this is going to be an inadequate definition in the future.
What can be said, is that the 'Executive' Civil Servant has a great deal to do with operational matters, and comparatively little with Parliament, advisory committees, and ministerial meetings.
At one time these aforementioned classes were comparatively self-contained, and there was little movement between one and another during a career. But that time has now long past. Movement from the Clerical to the Executive Class is a natural progress of promotion. And nearly half the present Administration Class, from which the highest posts in the Service are filled, started their careers in other Classes. The Classes are not, in fact superimposed one above the other. They overlap, both in range of pay and weight of responsibility.
Whether it is for a life career or not, the fashionable word ‘commitment’ does undoubtedly apply to the civil servant. He does not just work for the Government: in a very real sense he (or she) is part of the Government, and as such shoulders a fragment of responsibility in governing.
Discoveries in administration are probably as important for society as discoveries in science. They are less noticeable, because the most successful administrative discoveries quickly become part of our everyday habits. They must do so, otherwise they would not be successful administrative discoveries. It is almost impossible to believe that they were actually made by a person sitting at their desk sucking onto their pen, and then developed.
Awareness of this responsibility, is what gives shape to the civil servant’s world: this, and the fascination of watching some corner or other of the never ending and irreversible progress of history develop. With all its frustrations and its anonymity, so far as the public is concerned, the life of a civil servant is concerned with the real world and with life as it is lived; not non-events and manufactured personalities.
EXTRACT:
John Carswell (1966), ‘The Civil Servant and His World’ published by The Garden City Press Limited, 1966-The_CS_and_His_World-pp-105.pdf (civilservant.org.uk) [accessed 07/06/24]
REFERENCES: