The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TILE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

(From the Timis of this day. )

In the complaints which have resulted in a cry for
Administrative Reform one of the most prominent was
levelled against what was termed the " routine" per-
vading our system of administration. Recently, how-
ever, it has been remarked in Parliament, as if in de-
precation of this protest, that routine in some form or
ether is absolutely indispensable to the proper conduct
of all establishments, whether public or private, and in
some sense this assertion is unquestionably true. All
our commercial and manufacturing establishments are
carried on from day to day by a system of regulations
which undeniably represents a species of routine, and
those are usually the best managed where this rou-
tine is most punctually observed. Common sense,
as well as the practice of business, teaches us that
there should be a place for everything, and that every-
thing should be in its place ; that labour is best
performed when divided, that every servant should
concentrate his attention on his own department,
ind that it is only by a strict adherence to established
regulations that the work of a lerge concern can be got
through. Even "forms" are adopted in private as well
as public offices, and observed with great precision. An
insurance-office supplies a printed form to be filled up by
a person wishing to insure ; trading or speculative com-
panies furnish forms of requisition to applicants f)r
shares ; banks use particular kinds of checkbooks ; nor
is anything more common in our commercial establish-
ments than for a customer to he passed from one depart-
ment to another until his business is completed. All this
however, is nothing more or less than routine, and why,
then, should a practice which is not only innocent and
beneficial in one case be so seriously detrimental in ano-
ther ? This questi in we will attempt to explain.
In the first place, the routine pervading the various
departments of our public administration was exagge-
rated in charaster. It was carried 4uniftreessaril y into
the minutice of business, and allowed to affect the most
Ine;gnificanti matters. Forms and requisitions were not
merely employed, but were refined upon and multiplied
to boot. If it were necessary or expedient that a par-
ticular application should be made in writing, it could
hardly have been requisite that it should be made on
paper of a particular kind, or that the signature of the
applicant should be precisely in a particular place, and
not an inch too high or too low. In the next place, the
importance attached to these observances was allowed
to outweigh that of the objects for which the obsery
ances themselves had been established. There appears
to have been DO distribution of that discretionary
authority by which the forms of the service might be
overruled for the good of the service. The officers of a
department seem to have been trained not so much
to see that the purposes of their department were
somehow or other properly answered as to see
that the traditions of the department itself were carefully
maintained. The routine, too, was not only rigorous but
inflexible, and was not modified, even in deference to
obvious demand. We are told that the "forms" of the
several departments had been much simplified, and were
not, generally speaking, either cumbrous or complicated
overmuch. The fact is, however, that they had been
adapted to times of peace, when economy was of more
consequence than despatch, when there was no strain or
tension to try them, and when checks and counterchecks,
if they effected little good, at all events did little mis-
chief. When this state of things was succeeded by war,
and when the object was not merely to keep an accurate
collection of vouchers, but to insure that everything
should come to hand 3,000 miles off exactly when it was
wanted, the system broke down, because it had not been
calculated for any such, trials.
But the great and essential difference between the
two cases to which we have referred—between the
routine of a public office and that of a private business
—consists in the fact that the Government could not,
for the purpose in question, be cons'dered as one estab-
lishment, and that consequently the forms of one depart-
ment were not properly accommodated to the forms of
another. In a private establishment there is one bead
or one source of authority, there are certain definite
purposes kept is view, and to the accomplishment of
these purposes all observances are adapted. Routine is
preserved as long as it conduses to its proper end, and
no longer. It is changed, modified, infringed, or aboli-
shed without scruple or delay, according as circum-
stances require, and the conductors of the establishment
can always take care that the routine of each department
shall coincide with the action of the rest. Where, how-
ever, departments are virtually independent of each other,
and each preserves a routine of its own, it is clear that the
work of the whole machine may be impeded, though themo-
don of particular wheels may be punctiliously secured. The
routine, in short, of a private establishment is nothing
but the observance of a system which is found from day
to day to answer the object of the whole concern ; the
routine of Government offices is the action of a strict
code of rules, special in their application, often unne-
cessarily minute, and not admitting of accommodation
to the real exigencies of public businesa.
From theseremisrks it is airy tededceisi.twei!r threw
conclitsions. Of course, nobody could argue that Go-
vernment departments, any more than those of private
tcehissatiatobnpl,iusrbheimgi
cue
Inbaturssi,ti
yis;he
sossyn ditieobmuei
dcoobrn,edi unnic
atfenadac
gt,wie
dr tolul
wot
ntthe order,
rot,
hpseraseye-
s
accessories would be absurd ; but the system itself
should not be exalted above its objects, nor
should it be invested with any such sanctity as to
impede the adoption of reforms the moment they
are required. Routine, -in short, is valuable only
as the means to an end. It should be to clerks what
di ill is to soldiers. It should show the readiest, the
easiest, the surest, and most compendious method of
doing a thing, arid, just as new macceuvres are adopted
in military science, so new regulations, or, in other
words, a new routine, should be introduced whenever
circumstances render it desirable. If the work of any
department is thoroughly well done the rules of that de-
partment must be good, and it signifies little whether
they go by the name of routine or any other ; but, if
they are so devised or enforced as to obstruct the work
itself, there is an end of all argument for their continu-
ance. Routine, in the sense of regularity, exactness,
and systematic order, is good ; iu the sense of rigid
rules, attaching paramount importance to forms, it is
bad. It should be our instrument, not our master ;it
should facilitate our operations instead of restricting
them.

(Prom the Daily News of this day.)

Some of the devices resorted to for the purpose of
throwing discredit on the Administrative Reform move-
ment are amusing enough. One of the newest is, with
a grave face, to call upon those who take part in it to
explain what they mean by Administrative Reform.
The best way to answer such querists would be to tell
them, as Dr. Johnson once told a putter of similar silly
questions—" Sir, lam bound to find you arguments,
but not understanding." Ministers at least, it is pretty
clear, have a tolerably accurate conception of what is
meant by Administrative Reform, Sir %Vin. Moles-
worth, for example, so far from affecting not to know
what it means, candidly told his Southwark constituents
that its necessity would become apparent if Mr.
Disrael's motion were carried. And Admiral Berkeley,
without waiting for any such conviming argument as a
vote of censure of the House • f Commons, tells hisconsti-
tuents—" I am quite alive to the necessity of reforming,
or rather eradicating, these evils"—i.e, the defects of the
administrative departments of goverment. True, the
gallant admiral says Oat he regrets " io much exag4era-
tion and so many false statements should have been
made within and without the walls of Parliament on such
subjects ;" but it has been the practiceof confessing de-
linquents to extenuate their offences as much as possible
ever since the days of the frail spinster who pleaded
guilty to the charge of having, had a child, but added
that it was " a very little one. '
Another of the devices alluded to is to insinuate, or
boldlp assert, that the movement is entirely factitious—
got up by a few ambitious men who seat to raise an
agitation that may carry them into Parliament. This
imputation may be disproved very easily , let any
man
take in his hand a list of the chief promotes of the Lon-
don Administrative Reform Association—tie body which
has as yet taken the most prominent part in the move-
ment—and go into the City and ascertain their charac-
ter, position, and relations. Ile will find that the great
majority of them are men to whom ministers might with
the utmost safety offer place, secure that their ta,tes, '
and the immense interests which demand their constant
attention, would debar them from accepting it. We
may add that we learn, from a source as to the reliabi-
lity of which there can be no doubt, that it is a standing
rule of the Association, that no person can have seat or
voice in the business committee who is a member of Par-
liament, or who aspires to become one, although the
co-operation and fellowship of no men, or class of men,
are rejected. This "self-denying ordinance' appears to
us judicious; not because we have any inistrtst of a man
merely because he devotes himself to public business as
a profession, but because it will relieve the members of
the committee from a world of solicitation, which might
be brought to bear with some hopes of slccess upon
politicians, but which would obviously be thrown away
upon men who are' determined to stick to their indus-
trial pur.uits.

But, for our own part, so far from thinking it any
objection to the organised movement to obtain
Admi-
nistrative Reform that it is likely to be joined by
some who look to it as a means of introducing them-
F elves to a public career, we hope that it may secure the
services of many such. The public cannot divine in-
stinctively who the men are that are capable of serving
them well and effectively. The man who astires to be-
come a legislator or administrator must embrace such
opportunities as offer to show the public that he pos-
sesses knowledge, talents, intrepedity, and firmness. It
will be better for the country to select its servants from
among those who have won their spurs by legitimate
agitation, than to take unknown men upon trust be-
cause they are recommended by some influential
patron. Agitation necessarily trains public men. A
young man joins in some movement of the day, without
any other intention than to forward it. He is found to
possess a talent for impassive speaking, or for sooth-
ing asperities among those with whom he co-operates,
and a great part of the business is thrown upon his
shoulders. The character of the professional politi-
cian is thus developed in him, and his time is so oceu.
pied that he is withdrawn from his former pursuits. He
has nothing for it hub to follow out the career upon
- -