[ Northcote-Trevelyan Report, 1854. ] Six items: long letter from Herries to Northcote in defence of the civil service; Northcote's reply; Herries' rejoinder; letter from Frederick Goulburn to Herries; two printed papers by George Arbuthnot.

Lord Hennessy has characterised the subject of these items, the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854, as 'the greatest single governing gift of the nineteenth to the twentieth century: a politically disinterested and permanent Civil Service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next'. According to Northcote's entry in the Oxford DNB, 'the Northcote-Trevelyan Report (with an approving appendix by Benjamin Jowett), dated 23 November 1853 and published in the parliamentary papers in 1854 (Parl. papers, 1854, 27), is one of the most famous and typical of mid-Victorian reforms, recommending the widespread use of the examination system and recruitment on merit in place of patronage and ‘old corruption’'. The article describes the background as follows: 'In conjunction with Sir Charles Trevelyan [(1807-1886)], Northcote was invited to serve on eight commissions inquiring into various aspects of civil service department reform. One of these was on the Treasury. By a Treasury minute of 12 April 1853 Northcote and Trevelyan were instructed to draw up a general report on the civil service with especial reference to its means of selection and promotion. The Northcote–Trevelyan report (with an approving appendix by Benjamin Jowett), dated 23 November 1853 and published in the parliamentary papers in 1854 (Parl. papers, 1854, 27), is one of the most famous and typical of mid-Victorian reforms, recommending the widespread use of the examination system and recruitment on merit in place of patronage and ‘old corruption’. These proposals anticipated the movement for administrative reform which was so striking a consequence of the Crimean War and affected the rising importance of the middle classes and the ‘career open to talent’.' The six items, of which only the last appears to have been published (no references to the first five having been discovered), are from the papers of Sir Charles John Herries (1815-1883), at the time deputy chair of the Board of Inland Revenue, and provide an extraordinary insight into the heated debate which the Report's proposals generated, with the correspondence between Herries and Northcote unusually intemperate. They comprise: ONE, a spirited and intemperate twenty-six-page defence of the civil service by Herries, in a private letter to Sir Stafford Northcote (1818-1887); TWO, Northcote's blunt reply, in which he accuses Herries of having been carried beyond 'the bounds of reason'; THREE, Herries' final bitter rejoinder; FOUR, a letter of support to Herries from Frederick Goulburn (d.1878) of the Board of Customs (appointed because his father was the politician Henry Goulburn), describing Herries' first letter as 'a stinger'; and FIVE and SIX, two printed papers by George Arbuthnot (1802-1865). No copies of Five and Six have been traced, either on OCLC WorldCat, COPAC, or at the LSE; and although the second of them was published at the time, there is no indication that the other 'Private' paper, although printed at the Foreign Office, was ever published, nor has any reference to it been discovered. The six items are in good condition, on lightly-aged paper. A full description follows. ONE: Retained copy, in manuscript, of long letter from Herries to Northcote, docketed by Herries: '1854 | Correspondence with Sir S. Northcote on admission to the Civil Service by open competition'. 26pp., 8vo. On seven bifoliums attached with green ribbon. Addressed from 114 Piccadilly, 15 April 1854. Headed 'Copy'. The start of the letter gives the background: 'Dear Northcote | I was much gratified by your statement to me some time ago that you intended publickly to apologize for the imputations upon the existing body of civil servants which are contained in your Report – Since that time I have been anxiously looking for some communication from you on this subject, and have been annoyed at the delay of an act of justice to a large class of persons who are, by the conditions of their employment, unable to give publicity to their defence. […] But to say the truth I can well understand that there may be some difficulty in cancelling the portion of your report which contains these imputations. They are, as it seems to me, essential to your case. For I can scarcely conceive that without a certainty that the present system is necessarily and in its very nature productive of great evil to the public service, any one would propose to substitute such a plan as yours, involving as it does an abandonment of the principles on which all Government has hitherto been conducted, and leading almost inevitably to changes in the constitution of the country which, be they good or bad, are at least entirely inconsistent with that constitution which at present exists.' A vigorous defence follows, Herries concluding: 'I deny the truth of every one of the assertions to our discredit. […] I do not retract one iota of my statements, nor will I abate the vehemence of my denial of the justice of yours. | Yours truly | (signed) C. J. Herries'. TWO: Autograph Letter Signed from 'Stafford H. Northcote' to Herries. From Pynes, Exeter, 19 April 1854. 4pp., 4to. Bifolium. He begins his reply to Item One: 'I own that I read the greater part of your letter of the 15th. (which has been forwarded to me here) with a good deal of surprise, until I came to the passage near the end in which you candidly say that “it has been written without referring to the publications on which it comments”, which undoubtedly affords some account of the strange misconceptions which you entertain of our much abused report.' In the course of a robust defence he makes the stinging retort: 'I am not in the least annoyed at the warmth of your indignation, nor surprised to find that it has carried you so far beyond what I think the bounds of reason.' He points out that he mentioned to him 'that Arbuthnot was writing a letter to the Treasury stating his objections to our Report, and that Trevelyan and I proposed to answer that letter. I said that we should take the opportunity of expressing our regret that we should have used language which has given pain to any members of the Civil Service, and of acknowledging that we ought to have spoken more fully of its merits, as well as of its defects, than we have done.' He cannot see how Herries can 'connect our proposal to substitute examination for patronage with the subversion of the House of Lords and British Constitution in general […] why a man who is placed in an office because he can read, write, and cipher better than his compeers, instead of because his second cousin voted for a Government candidate, should be a “pedantic coxcomb”; - these, and several other points in your letter, are suggestive of curious reflections: but I really do think we had better abstain from these angry recriminations […] But the manner in which we are met reminds me of a Solicitor with Stentorian lungs who was arguing a case before a Devonshire Justice of the Peace some years ago, and finding that his Worship was rather inclined to silence him by authority addressed him with “Mr. Tucker if you're for argument I'm for argument too, but if you're for noise, Sir, (raising his voice to the highest pitch) by Jove I'll beat you hollow.”' THREE: Retained copy of letter from Herries to Northcote, in Herries' autograph, with signature 'C J Herries'. 'I. R. | 27 April 1854.' 3pp., 4to. Bifolium. He begins his reply to Item Two: 'It is evidently quite useless to prolong our correspondence. You say that I do not understand your Report, and I am sure that you do not understand my letter.' FOUR: Autograph Letter Signed from 'Fred Goulburn' to Herries. Board of Customs, no date. 4pp., 12mo. Bifolium. He thanks him for 'sending me your letter to Northcote – I like it much It certainly is a stinger, but not a bit more so than he deserves.' He jokes that the letter may involver Herries in a duel: 'If he calls you out I'll be your second.' He continues: 'I feel myself more wrath against the older Sinner Trevelyan, but perhaps it was better to tackle Northcote who may by such an honest refutation of his absurd scheme be brought to reason […] As a civil servant I beg to return you my thanks for the scornful manner in which you have repudiated the false charges made against us'. He feels that Herries is 'rather hard upon the parsons whom you clearly are inclined to place in the lowest rank of the educated classes – They are not all Jowetts'. In a postscript he talks about showing Herries' letter to 'Freemantle', who is in Ireland. FIVE: Printed document by 'G. Arbuthnot. | Treasury, February 22, 1854.', titled 'Civil Patronage'. 6pp., folio. 'Printed at the Foreign Office, March 16, 1854.' In manuscript at head of first page: 'Private'. Responding to the report of Northcote and Trevelyan he writes: 'My position as second permanent officer in the Treasury, affords me some claim to come forward on the occasion; but I should hardly have been tempted to obtrude my opinions on the important subject under discussion, if I did not feel that my experience on the question is of a peculiar character. | During a service of thirty-four years, it has been my lot, from accidental circumstances, to have been entrusted with duties connected with every branch of the wide range of Treasury business, and nearly half of that time was spent in the Patronage Department, the administration of which is now brought under review. I should have made an ill use of the opportunities afforded me if I had not obtained some knowledge of the duties to be provided for in the public offices and the merits as well as the short-comings of the public servants by whom they are administered.' There is no record of this item having been published, SIX: Printed document by 'G. Arbuthnot. | The Lords Commissioners of | Her Majesty's Treasury.', titled 'Remarks by the Auditor of the Civil List on a Report “on the Organization of the Civil Service.” | Treasury Chambers, | 6th March 1854.' 9pp., folio. The following sums up Arbuthnot's position: 'I submit, my Lords, that charges so serious against the general body of the Public Servants ought not to be lightly put forth; and, as I trust that I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that the imputations cast against that body are undeserved, I presume, as the senior in rank, or at any rate the nearest to your Board of the class of officers which is aggrieved, to approach you on their behalf, with an humble but most earnest remonstrance against the publication of such aspersions in the authentic form of a state paper.'