¹ E.g., Waldo, Dwight, The Administrative State (New York, 1948), pp. 104–129Google Scholar.

² For examples, see Flemming, Arthur S., “The Civil Servant in a Period of Transition,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 13 (Spring, 1953), pp. 73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Long, Norton E., “Public Policy and Administration: The Goals of Rationality and Responsibility,” same, Vol. 14 (Winter, 1954), pp. 22–31Google Scholar.

³ The American Assembly, The Federal Government Service: Its Character, Presitge, and Problems (New York, 1954)Google Scholar. This series of essays contains contributions by Herbert Kaufman, Herman Miles Somers, Harvey C. Mansfield, Frederick and Edith Mosher, and Everett Reimer.

⁴ Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Personnel and Civil Service: A Report to the Congress (Washington, 1955)Google Scholar; id., Task Force on Personnel and Civil Service, Report on Personnel and Civil Service (Washington, 1955). The similarities between the recommendations of the American Assembly and the Hoover Commission are striking.

⁵ For suggestions that the British civil service be drawn from a broader social base, see Kingsley, J. Donald, Representative Bureaucracy (Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1944), pp. 261–283Google Scholar, and Kelsall, R. K., Higher Civil Servants in Britain (London, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁶ Human Nature in Politics, 2nd edition (London, 1920), p. 263Google Scholar.

⁷ Lavish tributes to the integrity of the civil service abound. Among them might be cited the Webbs' statement that “ … not the least of the successes of the British political Democracy has been its gradual development of an absolutely honest, highly capable and habitually faithful Civil Service, which takes a pride in serving loyally any Ministry whom the House of Commons calls to power, and may always be counted on to carry out, to the greatest advantage, any decision come to by that Ministry.” A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920), p. 89Google Scholar.

For similar views of Labour leaders who have had extensive contact with civil service practices, see Dalton, Hugh, Practical Socialism for Britain (London, 1935), p. 11Google Scholar; Morrison, Herbert, Government and Parliament (London, 1954), pp. 334–336Google Scholar; and Attlee, Clement, “Civil Servants, Ministers, Parliament, and the Public,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 25 (October–December, 1954), pp. 308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Prior to 1945, some elements in the Labour Party were convinced that the civil service was so permeated by upper class ideals that it would never be able to give a socialist government impartial and enthusiastic service. See, for example, Laski, Harold J., Parliamentary Government in England (London, 1938), pp. 317–318Google Scholar, and Postgate, Raymond, Life of George Lansbury (London, 1951), p. 295Google Scholar.

⁸ See Dale, H. E., The Higher Civil Service of Great Britain (Oxford, 1941), pp. 63–109Google Scholar, and SirBridges, Edward, Portrait of a Profession: The Civil Service Tradition (Cambridge, 1950)Google Scholar.

⁹ White, Leonard D., Whitley Councils in the British Civil Service (Chicago, 1933), pp. 241–278Google Scholar; Gladden, E. N., Civil Service Staff Relationships (London, 1943), pp. 71–96Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Excellent discussions of the concept of government as employer are contained in Godine, Morton R., The Labor Problem in the Public Service (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 21–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spero, Sterling, Government as Employer (New York, 1948), pp. 1–15Google Scholar; and Dotson, Arch, “The Emerging Doctrine of Privilege in Public Employment,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 15 (Spring, 1955), pp. 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Of the 684,000 non-industrial civil servants employed in 1952, 64.4 per cent belonged to staff associations affiliated with the Trades Union Congress, and 23.5 per cent were members of a staff association affiliated with the Labour Party. Whitley Bulletin, Vol. 33 (April, 1953), p. 53Google Scholar; 85th Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress (London, 1953), pp. 53–55Google Scholar.

¹² See, for example, the Hobhouse Committee's Report from the Select Committee on Post Office Servants (London, 1907)Google Scholar; the MacDonnell Commission's Minutes of Evidence, Third Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Cd. 6740 (London, 1913)Google Scholar and Minutes of Evidence, Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Cd. 7339 (London, 1914)Google Scholar; the Blanesburgh Committee's Report of the Committee on the Parliamentary etc. Candidature of Civil Servants, Cmd. 2408 (London, 1925)Google Scholar; and the Masterman Committee's Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, Cmd. 7718 (London, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹³ This point is stressed by Epstein, Leon D., “Political Sterilization of Civil Servants: The United States and Great Britain,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 10 (Autumn, 1950), pp. 281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The definition of the problem in Britain can be seen in the basic question the MacDonnell Commission of 1912–14 took up in its hearings: “Does any conflict arise between the desires and interests of the Civil Servant, regarded as a citizen, and the duty of the Civil Servant, regarded as such; and if such a conflict may or does arise, to what degree should either claim prevail over the other?” Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Cd. 7338 (London, 1914), p. 95Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, Cmd. 7718 (London, 1949), p. 13Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Levitan, David M., “The Neutrality of the Public Service,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 2 (Autumn, 1942), pp. 317–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Report of the Committee on the Parliamentary etc. Candidature of Civil Servants, Cmd. 2408 (London, 1925), p. 28Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Quoted in The Post, Vol. 4 (August 27, 1921), p. 182Google Scholar.

¹⁸ During the period 1890–1950, the total working population of Great Britain rose by 57 per cent, but government employment, apart from nationalized industries, increased by nearly 500 per cent. In 1891 British publio servants made up less than four per cent of the labor force; by 1950 the figure had risen to 14 per cent, excluding nationalized industries and public utilities, and 24 per cent if these groups are counted. Abramovitz, Moses and Eliasberg, Vera, “The Trend of Public Employment in Great Britain and the United States,” American Economic Review, Vol. 43 (May, 1953), p. 205Google Scholar.

¹⁹ The Staff Side proposed to the Masterman Committee a single convention that would replace all previous rules. It read: “Civil servants are free to engage in party political activity and it is left to their discretion and good sense to do so with due regard to their rank, the functions of their Department and their duties in it, on the understanding that an officer who by grossly negligent or wilful action or comment on a matter of party politics creates an intolerable position for his Department will be liable to disciplinary action.”

²⁰ Transcript of the Third Meeting of the Masterman Committee (unpublished manuscript, files of the Union of Post-Office Workers).

²¹ The evolution of the service from patronage to merit principles is described in Cohen, Emmeline W., The Growth of the British Civil Service (London, 1941), pp. 20–123Google Scholar; Eaton, Dorman B., Civil Service in Great Britain: A History of Abuses and Reform and Their Bearing on American Politics (New York, 1880), pp. 102–233Google Scholar; Greaves, H. R. G., The Civil Service in the Changing State (London, 1947), pp. 11–44Google Scholar; Lowell, A. L., The Government of England (New York, 1908), Vol. I, pp. 145–172Google Scholar; Moses, Robert, The Civil Service of Great Britain (New York, 1914), pp. 19–88Google Scholar; Stout, H. M., Public Service in Great Britain (Chapel Hill, 1938), pp. 23–43Google Scholar; and Wheare, K. C., The Civil Service in the Constitution (London, 1954)Google Scholar.

²² Caught in a squeeze between political factions, the postal and revenue staffs had requested their own disfranchisement in 1782. 22 Geo. III, c. 4. An act of 1710 forbade them to “intermeddle in elections,” which meant “by Word, Message, or Writing, or in any other Manner whatsoever, endeavour to persuade any Elector to give, or dissuade any Elector from giving his vote for the Choice of any Person … to serve in Parliament.” 9 Anne, c. 10, sec. 44.

²³ 31 and 32 Victoria, c. 73. A detailed description of this movement can be found in Swift, H. G., A History of Postal Agitation (London, 1900), pp. 50–54Google Scholar.

²⁴ 37 and 38 Victoria, c. 22.

²⁵ Treasury Minute of November 12, 1884, Command Papers, 1884–1885, Vol. 45, p. 171Google Scholar. This minute was consolidated with several others into clause 16 of the Order in Council of January 10, 1910.

²⁶ Treasury Minute of December 18, 1888; 12 H.C. Deb. (October 28, 1909), cols. 1177–1178.

²⁷ The areas of freedom and restriction are defined on two levels: on the all-service level, where prohibitions both general and specific are laid down (usually by the Cabinet on the advice of the Treasury), and on the departmental level, where content is given in particular cases to the general policies determined at the all-service level.

²⁸ The Party's manifesto on reconstruction, Labour and the New Social Order (London, 1918)Google Scholar, offered signs that the Party would press for the relief of civil servants' political rights. So, too, did its Report of the Advisory Committee on the Machinery of Government on the Civil and Political Status of Civil Servants (n.p., 1919).

²⁹ The Post, Vol. 6 (November 18, 1922), p. 456Google Scholar.

³⁰ 169 H.C. Deb. (February 14, 1924), cols. 1018–1019; Report of the Committee on the Parliamentary etc. Candidature of Civil Servants, Cmd. 2408 (London 1925), pp. 24–33Google Scholar. The Government did accept the Committee's recommendation that industrial workers in defense departments be released from the major prohibitons.

³¹ Alleged violations of civil servants' liberties were investigated and publicized by the National Council for Civil Liberties. See Kidd, Ronald, British Liberty in Danger (London, 1940)Google Scholar; National Council for Civil Liberties, Civil Liberties Offended (London, n.d)Google Scholar; and J. Donald Kingsley, op. cit., pp. 222–227.

³² A detailed discussion of the administration of political restrictions is contained in Christoph, J. B., “The Political Rights of British Civil Servants” (dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1956), pp. 269–366Google Scholar.

³³ The departmental sample was chosen on the basis of several criteria: size, statutory function, degree, of contact with the public, and relationship to local government authorities. The departments were the Post Office, the Board of Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

³⁴ Several Establishments officers said that they had no idea of the true extent of participation of the incidence of violations among their staff—a valuable commentary in itself. One regional director of the Post Office wrote: “The crux of the matter is that we do not possess … such detailed knowledge of the private lives of our staffs as would enable us to list their political activities with any degree of accuracy; nor do we wish to possess it.” (Italics mine.)

³⁵ There had been one Lord Mayor (Liverpool), 20 mayors or provosts, 172 members of Urban District Councils or Rural District Councils, and 251 members of municipal, town, or parish councils.

³⁶ Comment in several of the influential journals of opinion had pointed up numerous discrepancies in the rules and their administration. See The Economist, Vol. 62 (April 12, 1947), p. 531Google Scholar, and the Manchester Guardian, January 7, 1948.

³⁷ 436 H.C. Deb. (May 1, 1947), cols. 2160–2161.

³⁸ The Labour Party manifesto for the 1945 General Election, Let Us Face the Future (London, 1944)Google Scholar, had promised repeal of the Trade Disputes Act and expanded political freedom for individual government employees.

³⁹ Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, Cmd. 7718 (London, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ This position was also taken by Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in his dissent to the ruling upholding the Hatch Acts. 330 U.S. 120–126 (1947).

⁴¹ The “free” group was to number approximately 666,000, the restricted group 470,000. Masterman Report, p. 32.

⁴² See the debates in Parliament, 467 H.C. Deb. (July 30, 1949), cols. 3009–3022. Staff association reaction can be found in Whitley Bulletin, Vol. 29 (August, 1949), p. 125Google Scholar; The Post, Vol. 54 (July 16, 1949), pp. 35–36Google Scholar; State Service, Vol. 29 (August, 1949), p. 182Google Scholar; Red Tape, Vol. 39 (November, 1949), p. 55Google Scholar; and a letter from Douglas Houghton of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation to the London Times, September 20, 1949. The Trades Union Congress voted overwhelmingly to censure the Government for accepting the restrictive features of the Report. 81st Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress (London, 1949), pp. 505–508Google Scholar. The National Council for Civil Liberties issued a pamphlet entitled “Civil Servants and Politics: The Masterman Report Exposed” (London, 1950)Google Scholar. Further critical commentary is contained in Laski, H. J., Thoughts on the Constitution (Manchester, 1950), pp. 188–196Google Scholar, and Morris-Jones, W. H., “The Political Rights of Civil Servants,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 20 (October-December, 1949), pp. 364–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ 469 H.C. Deb. (November 15, 1949), cols. 189–190.

⁴⁴ The Political Activities of Civil Servants, Cmd. 8783 (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Within the intermediate group two subgroups were to be established: one having standing permission to undertake local political activities, the other—made up chiefly of members of departments having policy contacts with local authorities—remaining under the obligation to seek departmental permission before doing so.

⁴⁶ A provisional breakdown of individual departments into the three categories can be found in 526 H.C. Deb. (April 8, 1954), cols. 513–514.