{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012409513960703205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008273009307135471, 'mean_word_length': 5.282467532467533, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
John Backhouse and the Origins of the Permanent Undersecretaryship for Foreign Affairs: 1828-1842

One of the more important features of the transformation of the departmental service of the eighteenth century into the civil service of the nineteenth century was the emergence of the permanent official. There had always been a degree of permanence in the bureaucracy, particularly in the clerical positions, but in the higher ranks and especially among the undersecretaries the distinction between political and clerical officers tended to be blurred and each man had responsibilities in both spheres. By 1830 these officials no longer occupied ambivalent situations. In most departments one was a political appointee whose position was dependent on the political fortunes of the minister. The other undersecretary, however, had shed his political responsibilities and as a consequence was more or less immune to the political forces of parliamentary politics. Yet the process whereby these events took place was to a certain extent individualized in different departments. In the case of the Foreign Office the impact of financial and political changes in the state was considerably less important than in departments such as the Treasury. Neither of the foreign undersecretaries had ever had much influence over the formation of policy, nor were they to gain responsibility in this area during the 1830s. Yet clearly by the time Lord Palmerston became foreign secretary one of these men, John Backhouse, occupied a permanent position while his colleague, Sir George Shee, held a more temporary status. The distinction between the two positions became more rigid during the period Backhouse remained in office not so much as a result of political forces in the state, though these forces contributed somewhat to the changes that occurred, but as a consequence of Backhouse's growing responsibility for supervising the establishment.