« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
of no litigation was not under [his) natural authority, the finance minister, but under a far-away judge who had never heard of him.
The whole office of the Lord Chancellor is a heap of anomalies. He is a judge, and it is contrary to obvious principle that any part of administration should be intrusted to a judge,- it is of very grave moment that the administration of justice should be kept clear of any sinister temptations; yet the Lord Chancellor, our chief judge, sits in the Cabinet and makes party speeches in the Lords. Lord Lyndhurst was a principal Tory politician, and yet he presided in the O'Connell case; Lord Westbury was in chronic wrangle with the bishops, but he gave judgment upon “Essays and Reviews.” In truth the Lord Chancellor became a Cabinet minister because, being near the person of the sovereign, he was high in court precedence, and not upon a political theory wrong or right.
A friend once told me that an intelligent Italian asked him about the principal English officers, and that he was very puzzled to explain their duties, and especially to explain the relation of their duties to their titles. I do not remember all the cases; but I can recollect that the Italian could not comprehend why the First Lord of the Treasury had as a rule nothing to do with the Treasury, or why the “Woods and Forests” looked after the sewerage of towns. This conversation was years before the cattle plague, but I should have liked to hear the reasons why the Privy Council office had charge of that malady; of course one could give a historical reason, but I mean an administrative reason, reason which would show, not how it came to have the duty, but why in future it should keep it.
But the unsystematic and casual arrangement of our public offices is not more striking than their difference of arrangement for the one purpose they have in common. They all, being under the ultimate direction of a parliamentary official, ought to have the best
VOL. IV.- 15
means of bringing the whole of the higher concerns of the office before that official: when the fresh mind rules, the fresh mind requires to be informed. And most business being rather alike, the machinery for bringing it before the extrinsic chief ought for the most part to be similar; at any rate, where it is diferent it ought to be different upon reason, and where it is similar, similar upon reason. Yet there are almost no two offices which are exactly alike in the defined relations of the permanent official to the parliamentary chief. Let us see. The Army and Navy are the most similar in nature: yet there is in the army a permanent outside office, called the Horse Guards, to which there is nothing else like; in the navy there is a curious anomaly,-a Board of Admiralty, also changing with every Government, which is to instruct the First Lord in what he does not know. The relations between the First Lord and the Board have not always been easily intelligible; and those between the War Office and the Horse Guards, are in extreme confusion, - even now a parliamentary paper relating to them has just been presented to the House of Commons, which says the fundamental and ruling document cannot be traced beyond the possession of Sir George Lewis, who was Secretary for War three years since, and the confused details are endless, as they must be in a chronic contention of offices. At the Board of Trade there is only the hypothesis of a board, - it has long ceased to exist; even the President and Vice-President do not regularly meet for the transaction of affairs: the patent of the latter is only to transact business in the absence of the President; and if the two are not intimate and the President chooses to act himself, the VicePresident sees no papers and does nothing. At the Treasury the shadow of a board exists; but its members have no power, and are the very officials whom Canning said existed to make a House, to keep a House, and to cheer the ministers. The India Office has a fixed “Council"; but the Colonial Office, which rules over our other dependencies and colonies, has not and never had the vestige of a council. Any of these varied constitutions may be right, but all of them can scarcely be right.
In truth, the real constitution of a permanent office to be ruled by a permanent chief has been discussed only once in England; that case was a peculiar and anomalous one, and the decision then taken was dubious. A new India Office, when the East India Company was abolished, had to be made. The late Mr. James Wilson, a consummate judge of administrative affairs, then maintained that no council ought to be appointed eo nomine, but that the true council of a cabinet minister was a certain number of highly paid, much occupied, responsible secretaries, whom the minister could consult, either separately or together, as and when he chose. Such secretaries, Mr. Wilson maintained, must be able ; for no minister will sacrifice his own convenience and endanger his own reputation by appointing a fool to a post so near himself, and where he can do much harm. A member of a board may easily be incompetent; if some other members and the chairman are able, the addition of one or two stupid men will not be felt, – they will receive their salaries and do nothing: but a permanent undersecretary, charged with a real control over much important business, must be able, or his superior will be blamed and there will be “a scrape in parliament.”
I cannot here discuss, nor am I competent to discuss, the best mode of composing public offices and of adjusting them to a parliamentary head; there ought to be on record skilled evidence on the subject, before a person without any specific experience can to any purpose think about it: but I may observe that the plan which Mr. Wilson suggested is that followed in the most successful part of our administration, the Ways and Means part. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepares a budget, he requires from the responsible heads of the revenue department their estimates of the public revenue, upon the preliminary hypothesis that no change is made but that last year's taxes will continue; if afterwards he thinks of making an alteration, he requires a report on that too. If he has to renew Exchequer bills, or operate anyhow in the City, he takes the opinion, oral or written, of the ablest and most responsible person at the National Debt Office and the ablest and most responsible at the Treasury. Mr. Gladstone, by far the greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer of this generation, one of the very greatest of any generation, has often gone out of his way to express his obligation to these responsible skilled advisers: the more a man knows himself, the more habituated he is to action in general, the more sure he is to take and to value responsible counsel emanating from ability and suggested by experience. That this principle brings good fruit is certain: we have, by unequivocal admission, the best budget in the world. Why should not the rest
. of our administration be as good if we did but apply the same method to it?
I leave this to stand as it was originally written, since it does not profess to rest on my own knowledge, and only offers a suggestion on good authority. Recent experience seems, however, to show that in all great administrative departments there ought to be some one permanent responsible head through whom the changing parliamentary chief always acts, from whom he learns everything and to whom he communicates everything. The daily work of the Exchequer is a trifle compared with that of the Admiralty or the Home Office, and therefore a single principal head is not there so necessary; but the preponderance of evidence at present is, that in all offices of very great work some one such head is essential. Addendum to second edition.
ITS SUPPOSED CHECKS AND BALANCES.
In a former essay I devoted an elaborate discussion to the comparison of the royal and unroyal form[s] of parliamentary government. I showed that at the formation of a ministry and during the continuance of a ministry, a really sagacious monarch might be of rare use. I ascertained that it was a mistake to fancy that at such times a constitutional monarch had no rôle and no duties; but I proved likewise that the temper, the disposition, and the faculties then needful to fit a constitutional monarch for usefulness were very rare, - at least as rare as the faculties of a great absolute monarch, - and that a common man in that place is apt to do at least as much harm as good, perhaps more harm. But in that essay I could not discuss fully the functions of a king at the conclusion of an administration, for then the most peculiar parts of the English government — the power to dissolve the House of Commons and the power to create new peers — come into play; and until the nature of the House of Lords and the nature of the House of Commons had been explained, I had no premises for an argument as to the characteristic action of the king upon them. We have since considered the functions of the two Houses, and also the effects of changes of ministry on our administrative system; we are now, therefore, in a position to discuss the functions of a king at the end of an administration.
I may seem over-formal in this matter, but I am very formal on purpose. It appears to me that the functions of our executive in dissolving the Commons