of the power of It has been suggested that the relations between the subordinate class of public functionaries and the executive government should be regulated by statute, so as to prevent a possible abuse of power on the part of the responsible advisers of the crown towards their Exercise subordinates in office. But it has been well remarked by Lord Grey, that it would be impossible to limit the dismissal. power of dismissal to cases in which misconduct could be proved before a court of law, without incurring the risk of having the executive government paralysed by the passive resistance of persons holding these situations, and by the obstructions they would be able to throw in the way of ministers they wished to oppose. Law would be too clumsy an instrument for regulating the conduct of the ministers of the crown and the permanent civil servants of the state in their relations to each other. This is now far more effectually and far more safely accomplished by the power of public opinion. So great is the authority of public opinion, that no minister now ever thinks of dismissing a public servant from those offices which are regarded as permanent, unless for gross misconduct; but at the same time he has the power (and public opinion would support him in using it) of dismissing such a servant for misconduct, which it might be impossible for any law to define beforehand, and of which there might be no legal evidence, though there was a moral certainty.' i Lord Grey proceeds to point out that active opposition to their political chiefs for the time being, or attempts to embarrass them either by passive resistance or by putting difficulties in the way of their administration of office, are just those kinds of misconduct which would be most dangerous, and yet most difficult to suppress or prevent by legal enactment.*The knowledge that Grey, Parl. Govt. new ed. pp. L. April 18, 1864, on the Education Com. and the vote of the H. of C. 326, 327. * Ib. p. 327. See speeches of Earls Granville and Grey, in H. of Work in with office hours contrary to rules of the service. there is no legal restriction on the power of dismissal to prevent a minister from dealing with such a case as it would deserve, has probably been the principal reason why such cases do not arise; and, by preventing the possibility of a struggle between a government and its servants, has kept up the good feeling which has. hitherto existed between them.'1 m By a Treasury minute of March 27, 1849, the principle has been laid down that the public are entitled to the whole of the time of the civil servants of the crown, and that government employés should not be allowed to accept situations as directors of companies requiring their attendance elsewhere during office terfering hours, or otherwise to engage in pursuits which would interfere with the proper discharge of their official duties. But so long as civil servants discharge the duties of their departments satisfactorily, the government are disposed to refrain from interference with them in endeavours to improve their pecuniary circumstances." On April 1878 the rule was further defined in respect to local offices, members of school boards, &c., and the opinion was strongly expressed that such extra employment is generally prejudicial to the public service, because no one can serve two masters. Such offices, if of profit, are specially objectionable. If not of profit, the chief of each department must consider and decide on the compatibility of functions in respect of character and time.' Whenever it is deemed advisable, in furtherance of 1 Grey, Parl. Govt. new ed. p. 327. See discussions in both Houses in 1872 as to alleged discourtesies in treatment of Dr. Hooker, direc. of Kew Gardens, by his official chief, the first comn. of works, Hans. D. v. 213, pp. 2, 709. m Chanc. of excheq Hans. D. v. 212, p. 954; also Ib. v. 219, p. 329. But this rule would not apply to professional men, Ib. v. 225, p. 904. In regard to persons in the army and navy taking part in religious services when off duty, see 1b. v. 213, p. 836. For example, by being directors of Co-operative Supply Associations, Ib. v. 221, p. 870; v. 225, p. 911. • Com, Pap. 1882, v. 52, p. 639. and re lowances. proposed reforms or retrenchments in the public ser- Pensions vice, to dispense with the services of any particular class tiring alof public employés, it has always been customary to respect the claims of existing incumbents, by allotting to them suitable pensions or retiring allowances. It was well said by Edmund Burke, whose patient labours in the cause of national retrenchment were so eminently successful, that it was neither wise, expedient, nor just to interfere retrospectively with places or pensions; that reform ought to be prospective; that the duration of the life of a nation was not to be compared with the short duration of the life of an individual; that an individual hardship, and especially an injustice, ought not to be committed for the sake of arriving a few years sooner at the object Parliament had in view, namely, economical reform.P 'The reason why public retrenchment in this country has been satisfactory to the nation is this, that no country, no Parliament, in pursuing the work of retrenchment, ever has been so studiously observant of the claims of justice to every individual. And therefore the work of retrenchment must be a wellconsidered and a gradual work.' It is to the credit of the imperial government that they have invariably acted upon this magnanimous principle. Authority has been given to the Treasury, by a general Act of Parliament, to make suitable compensation to all persons whose offices may be abolished; and in cases which do not come within the purview of this Act, special provision is made by Parliament for the When the new Divorce and Probate Court was established, in 1857, provision was made to compensate the proctors who had P Mir. Parl. 1836, p. 1047. 4 Mr. Gladstone's speech to electors of Greenwich, 21 Dec. 1868. 4 & 5 Will. IV. c 24; Com. Pap. 1852-3, v. 57, p. 717. Hans. D. v. 207, p. 308. See case of Sir R. Bromley in 1865, Reports of Civil Service Expenditure Committee. practised in the old Ecclesiastical and Prerogative Courts, which were then abolished. This compensation, including retiring allowances to judges and other officers of said courts, amounted to upwards of 116,000l. per annum.t Formerly the lord chancellor was at liberty to increase salaries of clerks in the Court of Chancery, within certain limits, at his own discretion, but in 1869 an Act was passed providing that the Treasury should be a party to all alterations of salary in connection with the court, and in 1871 the committee on public accounts reported that it was desirable that the Treasury sanction should be obtained to all alterations of salaries and office expenses of the courts of law." On Feb. 18, 1873, a select committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire into any and what reductions could be effected in the expenditure for civil services (other than the national debt and the civil list), whether charged on the Consolidated Fund or defrayed from votes of Parliament, with special reference to those branches thereof which are not under the direct or effectual control of the Treasury. This committee was presided over by Mr. Childers. It made three reports, and recommended that the enquiry should be continued in the next session. The new ministry, however, declined to propose a resumption of it. But they decided to appoint a commission to en.quire into various matters affecting the civil service. The first report (March 31) recommended that, inasmuch as the mastership of the Rolls was about to be vacated, any new appointment in that department should be made subject to the express condition that the office may be abolished or modified, or its salary reduced by the Treasury, without compensation, and that the Treasury should at once proceed to revise this department. In their second report the committee service recommended that this principle should be applied to Civil all salaried offices in legal departments within the expenscope of this enquiry." Whereupon a Treasury minute diture. was issued, authorising a circular to be sent to the judges, &c., in conformity therewith.* The second report (June 12) dealt further with the administrative departments of the courts of justice in the United Kingdom, the expenditure for which amounts to 1,746,000l. per annum. While, as While, as a rule, the Treasury claims and exercises a right to judge every measure increasing, or tending to increase, the civil expenditure, the functions of that department are not uniform in respect of all branches of the civil service. The power of the Treasury in dealing with the legal departments is to a great extent limited by statute, and is ineffectual to prevent excessive and ill-regulated expenditure. The committee therefore recommended (as preferable to enquiry by themselves) that these establishments should undergo a searching investigation by a competent commission of enquiry to be appointed by the crown. This enquiry to embrace the numbers, salaries, superannuations, mode of appointment, and promotion for each establishment, and should recommend who ought to be responsible to Parliament for their organisation, and what should be their relation to the Treasury; and in view of the probable changes under the Judicature Bill now pending (and since become law), should report what rules ought to be laid down as to compensation on abolition of judicial or other offices therein, with a view to general legislation on the subject." This commission of enquiry was appointed by the crown in Report of October 1873. On December 8 they presented a first report, on w Com. Pap. 1873, v. 7, pp. 387, 391. × Ib. 1875, v. 61, p. 383. See Hans. D. v. 225, p. 1001. Civil Service Expenditure y For steps taken by govt. to carry Commission. out this report, see Hans. D. v. 216, p. 1856; v. 217, p. 494. |