Uses And Abuses Of Patronage

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30396, 21 March 1964, Page 4

Uses And Abuses Of Patronage

Patronage In British Govern* ment By Peter Richards, Allen and Unwin. 284 pp. Positions of power in England are filled chiefly by election, by competitive examination and by patronage. The last method has not been given the attention it clearly merits. The patronage powers of the British government are surprisingly widespread. Bishops and deans of the Church of England, High Court judges, members of advisory and administrative boards, life peers, hereditary earls and M.B.E.’s all owe their posts to government appointment. In eighteenth century England, patronage was the understood method of distributing desirable positions. The powerful conferred the favours, those of secondary rank competed for them. Appointments were thus secured by the most influential claimants rather than the most able. Naturally enough, the powerful did not confer favours upon those who opposed their will. Today, patronage is an emotive word associated with a variety of abuses. It conjures up a picture of those desirable positions with large salaries and no duties such as “the Housekeeper in Excise.” “the Chaff Wax” and “the Keeper of the King’s Hanaper.” It is indeed remarkable that anyone with so imposing a title as “Clerk of the Dispensations and Faculties and the Patentee for the Execution of the Laws and Statutes concerning Bankrupts” should apparently have no duties at all. Corruption, the author asserts, is not an essential feature of patronage. It is merely a probable consequence if proper precautions are not taken. Patronage included the distribution of jobs and the allocation of other types of benefit and financial aid such as honors, pensions, military and diplomatic appointments. The scope of patron age declined in the nine-

• teenth century but, the author , asserts, this decline has-been decisively reversed in this . century as a consequence of . the increasing scope of public administration. Mr Richards devotes a great deal of space to the historical origins of the Justice of the Peace system ’ and the elimination of cor- . ruption and patronage in the civil service and the rise of the examination system. These acounts are clear, concise and interesting. The weakness of the study lies in the lack of a broader social context which might have answered some of the questions inevitably raised by Mr Richards's account. When the author declares, for example, that “no alternative selection procedure is preferable” for a wide range of administrative posts filled by patronage, he may be right. He has not attempted however to make a comparative study and the alternative selection procedures are not seriously investigated or discussed. Two strong impressions are left by Mr Richards’s work. First, patronage places a premium upon social acceptability. Judges and Anglican bishops are chosen from a narrow social circle, and the boy who goes to theological college from a grammar school or provincial university is unbasic objection to patronage likely to become a bishop. Second, it is clear that the as a system hinges on its ability to control covertly the course of political conduct. It can be used and indeed is used to discourage dissent and reinforce conformity within political parties. Mr Macmillan’s use of the hon-i ours system for Conservative Party purposes draws especially severe criticism fromi the author. Patronage is the I ideal weapon with which to preserve an entrenched minority. It strengthens the authority of the Prime Minister over his party. It ensures that posts of major administrative importance go to socially acceptable men with conformist inclinations and that advisory boards will be chosen from highly responsible people who will not create undue difficulties for Government departments. In general, patronage has been unable to resist the rising tide of social mobility. It has disintegrated in the Public Service and in local government with the rise of professional standards and the examination system. It still matters at the top. Abuses are not serious at present and Mr Richards does not appear anxious to abolish patronage. He considers that some forms which give cabinets undue control over their party should go and that Church appointments should be removed from the control of the Prime Minister. While unfetted patronage is a menace to democracy, when limited, it provides a valuable “administrative element” and helps things to run smoothly.