Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:38:40.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Warren Fisher and the Transformation of the British Treasury, 1919–1939

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

John R. Greenaway
John R. Greenaway*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been recognized that British central administration rarely undergoes radical upheaval. Major changes tend to occur in a cumulative or incremental manner, rather than being imposed suddenly as part of a politically-inspired program of reform. Even when the tempo of change in Whitehall has been at its quickest, for example in the two world wars, the dominant pattern has been for ad hoc adaptation of existing practices or for uncoordinated improvisations. All this is in character for a country whose political system is determined less by institutional frameworks or legal codifications than by ever subtly changing codes of practice or conventions. As a result, however, it is not unknown for significant changes in the workings of Whitehall to go largely unnoticed by contemporaries. It is argued here that one such development was the transformation in the inter-war period of the Treasury and of the higher civil service which was presided over by Warren Fisher, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury from 1919 to 1939.

The extent and significance of these changes has tended to be masked even for later historians by the more obvious upheavals in both the work and organization of departments during each of the world wars. However, the changes wrought by Fisher and his associates had repercussions far beyond the confines of the Treasury itself. Five interrelated developments can be traced during this period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 125 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to Dr. Richard Chapman of the University of Durham for commenting upon an earlier draft of this article.

1 For general analysis of the pattern of administrative change in Britain see Caiden, Gerald E., Administrative Reform (Chicago, 1969), pp. 94–95Google Scholar; Chapman, Richard A. and Greenaway, J. R., The Dynamics of Administrative Reform (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Johnson, Nevil, “Administrative Reform in Britain,” in Leemans, Arne F. (ed.), The Management of Change in Government, (The Hague, 1976)Google Scholar.

2 For British government in the First World War see Burk, Kathleen (ed.), War and the State: The Transformation of British Government, 1914-1919, (London, 1982)Google Scholar; for the Second World War see Lee, J. M., Reviewing the Machinery of Government 1942-1952, An Essay on the Anderson Committee and its Successors (Birbeck College, London, 1977)Google Scholar.

3 Roseveare, Henry, The Treasury, The Evolution of a British Institution (London, 1969), pp. 152–234Google Scholar.

4 Ridley Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, Minutes of Evidence, q. 10623, P.P., 1888, [C. 5545], XXVII.

5 Quoted Fourth Report, MacDonnell Royal Commission on the Civil Service, pp. 85–86, P.P., 1914, [Cd. 7339], XVIGoogle Scholar.

6 Burk, Kathleen, “The Treasury: from Impotence to Power” in Burk, , War and State, pp. 84–96Google Scholar.

7 Second Report of Ridley Royal Commission on Civil Establishments pp. xi–xii, P.P., 1888, [C. 5545], XXVIIGoogle Scholar; Fourth Report of the MacDonnell Royal Commission on the Civil Service, pp. 84–87, P.P., 1914, [Cd. 7339], XVIGoogle Scholar; P.R.O. T/100/1.

8 L.S.E. Passfield Reconstruction Papers, vol. A, fols. 1039-54, 1010-11, 1080, 788-91, vol. B, fols. 157-58.

9 Reports of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the Organisation and Staffing of Government Offices, P.P., 1918, [Cd. 9074 and Cd. 9220], VIIGoogle Scholar, & P.P., 1919, [Cmd. 62], XI.

10 5 Parl. Deb. H.C., 120: 972 (30 Oct. 1919)Google Scholar.

11 Burk, , “Treasury”, War and State, pp. 100–02Google Scholar.

12 Stack, Freida, “Civil Service Associations and the Whitley Report of 1917,” Political Quarterly, XL (1969), 283–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Red Tape, editorial, Oct. 1917, 1Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., Aug. 1919, 125.

15 5 Parl. Deb. H.L., 125: 286 (25 Nov. 1942)Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., 285.

17 University of Birmingham, memo, dictated by Austen Chamberlain, 13 January 1919, recounting conversation with Lloyd George, Austen Chamberlain Papers, AC/49/4/2.

18 Sir John Bradbury to Austen Chamberlain, 19 August 1919, AC/24/21.

19 Ibid., Geddes, 5 Part. Deb. H.L., 125: (25 Nov. 1942).

20 Evidence to Public Accounts Committee, 30 April 1936, q. 4443 P.P., 1935-36, V.

21 The Times, 27 Sept. 1948, p. 6Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., The Times refuses to disclose the authorship of its obituaries even after thirty years; this is an indication of the way in which the “closed” or secretive nature of British government has influenced other areas of public life. A comparison with LordBridges, , The Treasury, (2nd ed. London 1966), pp. 170–71Google Scholar suggests that Bridges may have been the author. An interesting picture offered by one who suffered somewhat at Fisher's hands is given in Ann Bridge (LadyO'Malley, ), Permission to Resign (London 1971), esp. pp. 96, 132–33Google Scholar.

23 Statement by Fisher paras 3-4, 17 December 1930, Tomlin Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Minutes of Evidence (HMSO, London, 1931), p.1267.

24 Ibid., q. 18556.

25 SirHamilton, H. P., “Sir Warren Fisher and the Public Service”, Public Administration, XXIX (1951), 35Google Scholar.

26 Tomlin, Evidence, q. 18837

27 Letter of Fisher to permanent heads of departments, 9 March 1921, quoted in Tomlin, , Evidence, p. 1267Google Scholar.

28 Hamilton, , “Fisher and Public Service”, Public Administration, pp. 15–22Google Scholar; Roseveare, , Treasury, pp. 247–49Google Scholar.

29 P.R.O., Fisher to Lloyd George, 3 Sept. 1919 T171/170, quoted in Burke, , “Treasury”, War and State p. 100Google Scholar.

30 Roseveare, , Treasury, p. 243Google Scholar, n. 2.

31 Finer, Herman, The British Civil Service. An Introductory Essay (London, 1927), p. 31Google Scholar.

32 Fisher considered a “common rank as essential” for the development of “teamwork”, Tomlin, Evidence q. 18677.

33 Parris, Henry, Staff Relations in the Civil Service. Fifty Years of Whitleyism (London, 1973), pp. 32–53Google Scholar.

34 W. J. Brown, Tomlin, Evidence, qs. 5101-13.

35 Quoted in Parris, , Staff Relations, pp. 33Google Scholar.

36 University of Birmingham, Bradbury to Chamberlain, 19 August 1919, Austen Chamberlain Papers, AC/24/21.

37 Tomlin, Evidence, q. 18693.

38 Bridges, Treasury, p. 177Google Scholar.

39 5 Parl. Deb. H.C., 191: 2093–95 (18 February 1926)Google Scholar; ibid., 194: 289-34, (14 April 1926); ibid., 208: 57-110 (27 June 1927); ibid., H.L., 125: 223-325 (25 and 26 November 1942). The title “Permanent Head of the Civil Service” was changed in 1920 to “Official Head” in an attempt to allay apprehensions. In practice people in conversation simply used the phrase “Head of the Civil Service,” Bridges, , Treasury, pp. 173–76Google Scholar. For analysis of origin of the title see Wright, Maurice, Treasury Control of the Civil Service 1854-74 (London 1969), appendices I and II, pp. 363–68Google Scholar.

40 For a detailed study of the Treasury and defense policy in the 1930s see Peden, G. C., British Rearmament and the Treasury 1932-39 (Edinburgh, 1979)Google Scholar A memorandum of 1924, drafted by Fisher on behalf of Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, shows how Fisher applied the idea of team-work to this sphere, in contrast to the head-on collisions characteristic of nineteenth-century relations in this area: “Good feeling between the non-political Heads of the four Services and between the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry is … more likely to provide general efficiency than are endeavours to dictate. All parties will learn to understand the others' point of view, and, even where these differ, ill-feeling and friction will be avoided”, quoted in Hamilton, , “Fisher and Public Service”, Public Administrtation, p. 28Google Scholar.

41 Roskill, S. W., Hankey: Man of Secrets (London, 1970) II, 310-20, III, 366Google Scholar.

42 Heclo, Hugh and Wildavsky, Aaron, The Private Government of Public Money. Community and Policy inside British Politics (London 1974), p. 75Google Scholar. C.f. LordBridges, , The Treasury as the Most Political of Departments (Cambridge, Mass., 1961)Google Scholar. By the 1960s the Department's influence was raising misgivings among politicians. Richard Crossman in 1966, for exmple, complained that “all the civil servants I worked with were imbued with a prior loyalty to the Treasury, and felt it necessary to spy upon me and report all my doings to the Treasury, whether I wanted them kept private or not”. Crossman, Richard, The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister, (London, 1975) I, 615Google Scholar.

43 Tomlin, Evidence q. 18805.

44 Fry, Geoffrey K., Statesmen in Disguise. The Changing Role of the Administrative Class of the British Home Civil Service, 1853-1966 (London, 1969), p. 58Google Scholar.

45 Tomlin Evidence, q. 18741 c.f.: “In emphasising the importance, as I see it, of the Civil Service being really a Service, I hope I shall not be understood to be advocating a ‘Bureaucracy’. Essentially the two ideas are opposed: a Service which is right in spirit and personnel realizes that its sole raison d'être is to give service alike to its Government and to its country, a Bureaucracy on the other hand is the instrument of an Executive intent on forcing the citizen to digest the contents of the cornucopia so mystically associated with State action.” Ibid., Statement by Fisher, p. 1268.

46 Lord Hewart of Bury, The New Despotism (London, 1929)Google Scholar; SirAllen, Carleton Kemp, Bureaucracy Triumphant (London, 1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Noltage, R. and Stack, F. “The Royal Institute of Public Administration 1922-39”, Public Administration, L (1972), 281–89Google Scholar.

48 Sixteenth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, P.P., 1941–1942, (120), IIIGoogle Scholar.