Admiralty Secretaries and The British Civil Service

Abstract

T lSWO APPROACHES-the administrative and the political-seem to dominate studies of the British of the eighteenth century. Many scholars adopting the first approach find the markedly lacking in most of the requisites for honest and efficient government. These historians note the excessive fee-taking by insufficiently-salaried clerks, the insecurity of tenure for administrators, the promotions by patronage rather than merit, the host of useless offices held by the politically influential, the politicking by officers more properly administrators, and the universal graft. They believe that a rat's nest existed until nineteenth-century reformers cleaned it up and laid the basis for the efficient British of today.' Although abundant evidence supports this administrative view, the argument displeases political historians. Following in the footsteps of Sir Lewis Namier, they have approached the as a part of their broader study of eighteenth-century politics.2 They admit deficiencies in the service, but argue that difficulties attend the birth of any organization. The was in its nascent stage. No one had yet clearly distinguished it from politics. Politicians appointed men to civil service positions such as the undersecretaryships of state or the secretaryships to the admiralty or treasury. Only after taking office could these minor men try to turn their baclks on politics and devote their energies to the king's administration: For the 'subministers, as Jenkinson called them, every change of administration was a test between loyalties-to their out-going chiefs, and