The Press. SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1914. The Government of London.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14987, 6 June 1914, Page 10

The Press. SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1914. The Government of London.

Recently in London two lectures were delivered on this subject, both by acknowledged experts. Ono of tho lecturers " was Mr Harold Spender, the other Sir Laurence Gomino. Mr H. Spender is ono of two brothers who hold a position of great power and influence in the' journalistic world of London," men of the highest character and academic distinction, and of strong Liberal principles. Sir * Laurence Gomme is known to a largo circle of readers as an accomplished writer on historical and antiquarian subjects; while to Londoners, ho has long been a familiar figure 'in a position from which he is just now retiring—viz., that of Clerk to the London County Council. Both lecturers had an extraordinary story to tell of the multitude of authorities which are concerned in the government of London, and of the confusion, overlapping, and want. of cohesion which prevail between one authority and another. Instead of one great, centralised system, with a central authority delegating functions or services to smaller; local bodies, we have an enormous, number of bodies, not I only practically independent, but often in direct collision with each other., It is little wonder that the ratepayer "does not know where he ." is"; and the real wander is that the vast congeries of elements runs as smoothly as it does.

Here is one of'several curious lists presented by Mr Spender: —Greater London, with a population of seven and a-quarter millions, is "run" by tho following :—Six County Councils, 38 Borough Counails, 62 Urban District Councils, 14 Rural District Councils, 4S Boards of Guardians, 53 Parish Councils, 42 Distress Committees—making a total of 263 authorities, or nearly SUOO persons, spending . annually over £40,000,000. .Ono wonders -whether to be more'appalled by the actual mass of administrative work concentrated within a small area, or by iho state of administrative chaos which tho catalogue suggests. And yet such an expression as "administrative chaos" would be quite a misleading and exaggerated description of tho actual conditions. As great cities go, Loudon might be described as well-governed; certainly it is much better governed than the largo cities of America. livery ono of these bodies is trying to do its duty honestly and well, and it is the very seal and energy of the individual bodies that tend to bring them into collision with each other. Still, there remain overlapping, confusion, and waste. And ono consequenco of the waste is that tho cost of government per head is higher in London j than in tho other large cities of England. Hero are a few examples of tho overlapping and confusion. Traffic, which is occupying a groat deal of anxious attention just now. should be a Greater London problem, because all the great public services, motorvehicles, trams, underground railways," delivery vans, etc.. ply far out into the suburbs. And yet three authorities have a say in the matter: the transit authority is tho County .Council; tho road authority is the Borough Councils; while tho authority for issing regulations is the Homo Office, or Ministry for Internal Affairs Again, tbo control of .smoke and dust, a most vital matter for London, involves frequent collisions; and there has actually been an instance of tho County Council threatening legal proceedings to compel tho removal of a destructor, which had been orected by a Borough Council. Imbeciles are under a local authority, lunatics under a ceutral; and (a /

still finer point of distinction) sewers are in the former category, main drains in tho latter. Then, there is that most crying of all tho evils of London government, as at present constituted, viz.. inequality of rating. A system under which each district bears tho cost of its own services and its own poor must be fruitful in hardships. Ono characteristic example will suffice. At present. Poplar, a typical East End district, is rated at 12s, whilo Westminster, a wealthy district, is rated at 6s. Needless to say, there is a powerful movement in favour of a more unified system, which would consolidate the rates, and make the wealthier districts help the poorer.

It is easy to cavil at tho situation generally. But our municipal experience out hero does not enable us to form any conception of tho tremendous difficulties involved in any comprehensive jcheme for tho reconstruction of tho Government of London. It is difficult to get Parliament to grapple with tho problem. As Mr Spender remarked, London suffers from Parliament's absorption in Imperial affairs. And yet tho work will havo to bo undertaken. By way of illustration of what unification and simplification would moan for London, Mr Spender gave two examples of departments in winch those methods are already in operation, and to the highest degree of efficiency. One is tho case of fires, and tho system enables all tho firo brigades of Greater London to be concentrated on one spot or half-a-dozen spots, according to requirements, in the shortest possiblo time: the whole being controlled by one operator with three call-keys in a small room on the Embankment. The other is the process of finding instantaneous admission to hospital for an infectious disease case, when tho hospital of the district has no room; the manipulation being equally simple and effective in this instance as in the former. The confusion in tho government of London is really due to piecemeal legislation in the past, which, howover, could hardly have been expected to anticipate the stupendously rapid rate at which the city has expanded. Much of the mischief was dono in 1855. It was partially counteracted by the great measure of 1888, which brought the County Council into existence. But it is since the latter year that the growth of Greater London has been most r3pid; so that tho whole problems of the relation of local and central government havo to bo attacked over again.