Editing Civil Service (United Kingdom) (section)

===Establishment===
{{rquote|right|the incorruptible spinal column of England|[[John Gunther]], 1940<ref name="gunther1940">{{cite book | url=https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.149663/2015.149663.Inside-Europe#page/n309/mode/2up | title=Inside Europe | publisher=Harper & Brothers | author=Gunther, John | author-link=John Gunther | location=New York | year=1940 | page=287}}</ref>}}

The Offices of State grew in England, and later the United Kingdom centred around the street [[Whitehall]], hence the metonym.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Jenkins |first1=Terence |title=London Tales |date=2013 |publisher=Acorn Independent Press |isbn=978-1-909121-04-1 |page=26 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TszCuTMpxdYC&pg=PT26 }}</ref> Initially, they were little more than [[wikt:secretariat|secretariat]]s for their leaders, who held positions at [[Court (royal)|court]].  They were chosen by the king on the advice of a patron, and typically replaced when their patron lost influence. In the 18th century, in response to the growth of the [[British Empire]] and economic changes, institutions such as the [[Office of Works]] and the [[Navy Board]] grew large. Each had its own system and staff were appointed by purchase or patronage. By the 19th century, it became increasingly clear that these arrangements were not working.

Under [[Charles Grant (British East India Company)|Charles Grant]], the [[East India Company]] established the [[East India Company College]] at Haileybury near London, to train administrators, in 1806. The college was established on recommendation of officials in China who had seen the [[imperial examination]] system. In government, a civil service, replacing patronage with examination, similar to the Chinese system, was advocated a number of times over the next several decades.<ref>(Bodde 2005)</ref>

[[William Ewart Gladstone]], in 1850, an opposition member, sought a more efficient system based on expertise rather than favouritism. The East India Company provided a model for [[Stafford Northcote]], private Secretary to Gladstone who, with [[Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet|Charles Trevelyan]], drafted the key report in 1854.<ref>{{cite book|author= Charles E. Trevelyan|title=Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service, Together with a Letter from the Rev. B. Jowett.|url=https://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1854_Northcote_Trevelyan_Report.pdf|year=1853}}</ref> The [[Northcote–Trevelyan Report]] recommended a permanent, unified, politically neutral civil service, with appointments made on merit, and a clear division between staff responsible for routine ("mechanical") and those engaged in policy formulation and implementation ("administrative") work. The report was not implemented, but it came as the bureaucratic chaos in the [[Crimean War]] demonstrated that the military was as backward as the civil service.  A [[Civil Service Commission (United Kingdom)|Civil Service Commission]] was set up in 1855 to oversee open recruitment and end patronage as Parliament passed an Act "to relieve the East India Company from the obligation to maintain the College at Haileybury".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.haileybury.com/about-haileybury/our-story/history-of-haileybury/|title=History of Haileybury|access-date=3 May 2020|archive-date=27 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191227195047/https://www.haileybury.com/about-haileybury/our-story/history-of-haileybury/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Prime Minister Gladstone took the decisive step in 1870 with his [[Order in Council]] to implement the Northcote-Trevelyan proposals.<ref>{{cite book|author=Simon Heffer|title=High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O1gbQwhBSiIC&pg=PA476|year=2013|page=476|publisher=Random House |isbn=9781446473825}}</ref> This system was broadly endorsed by commissions chaired by Playfair (1874), Ridley (1886), MacDonnell (1914), Tomlin (1931) and Priestley (1955).

The Northcote–Trevelyan model remained essentially stable for a hundred years. This was attributed to its success in removing corruption, delivering public services, even under stress of war, and responding effectively to political change.  Patrick Diamond argues:
{{blockquote|The Northcote-Trevelyan model was characterised by a hierarchical mode of Weberian bureaucracy; neutral, permanent and anonymous officials motivated by the public interest; and a willingness to administer policies ultimately determined by ministers. This bequeathed a set of theories, institutions and practices to subsequent generations of administrators in the central state.<ref>{{cite book|author=Patrick Diamond|title=Governing Britain: Power, Politics and the Prime Minister|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j0_dAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42|year=2013|publisher=I.B.Tauris|page=42|isbn=9780857734679}}</ref>}}

The [[Irish Civil Service (pre-independence)|Irish Civil Service]] was separate from the British Civil Service. Whilst the [[Acts of Union 1800]] abolished the [[Parliament of Ireland]], the [[Lord Lieutenant of Ireland]] was retained in formal charge of [[Dublin Castle administration|the Irish executive based at Dublin Castle]]. The [[Irish Office]] in Whitehall liaised with Dublin Castle. Some British departments' area of operation extended to Ireland, while in other fields the Dublin department was separate from the Whitehall equivalent.<ref>{{cite book|last=McDowell|first=Robert Brendan|title=The Irish administration, 1801-1914|date=1 December 1976|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=9780837185613}}</ref>