ANCIENT DEMOCRACY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 151, 27 June 1914, Page 15

ANCIENT DEMOCRACY

ENGLISH AND ROMAN ORIGIN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Sir Laurence Commc. retiring Clerk to the London County Council, and am eminent authority on London and Local Government, recently narrated some most interesting facts which are the result of long years of research. In addressing - the London Society he pointed out that the local government system of England was a heritage from Anglo-Saxon fore* fathers, and that was shown by the fact that the three principal institutions of tho Anglo-Saxons, the shire, the hundred, and the village, had continued as local government centres to within his* toric times. The shire was the most important of those institutions, and it was' interesting to note that', botli in respect of dialect and ethnology, the ancient shire boun* daries ( still indicated the difference ot the tribes who formed the shires. Tho shires were entirely democratic in their government, the assembly being attended by every freeman. The assemblies were held in tho earliest times in the open. ' air, tho great meetihg on Pennenden, Heath, near Maidstone, in the reign of ■William the Conqueror being the Tatosb example. The shires continued until the * formation of the new system of a com" ' mission of the peace, and from that time the people were governed by the justices uhtil the great Act of 1888 Restored: popular government by way_ of representation to the comities, which Wel'e tl» successors of the shires. HUNDRED AND VILLAGE. The hundred had a' less important history because it was a unit, for mili» , tary purposes only and very soon gave way to other organisations. It now only remained in the English system ofi government by being (he unit of compensation for damage done in a. riot op civil disturbance. The village was an extremely important unit of government and was the basis of the rural district, councils created under the Act of 1894 Intruding into this Bystem of local government were the municipal boroughs, which were of two kinds. The first was of purely English origin, but. the Second 1 began on a Roman site and continued its history in the later system. All the cities on Roman' sites had, with one exception, assumed the entire character of the English Constitution by becoming manorialised. , The 1 one exception was London, and his researches into the history of London had convinced him that in London, and , ih London alone, there \vafc a direct continuity of organisation from Roman times to tho present. The government of London at the present momeht centred . around the ancient city. The system of. government _in the city was unique in, ,., municipal history and contained remark* * able examples of the claims to independ 1 - • encc made on the city's behalf. Its ex- v , pansiott beyond its formal boundaries'' began in Tudor times and' had gone on until they had the remarkable area which had been formed into the present County of London. No system ofcl ■ government was given to that extended! ' area beyond the ancient city until thai attempt in 1855 to organise a new ex*' periment in local government in Eng« land by the creation of the Metropolitan' Board of Works, 'which was a good example of hoNy experimental legislation inconsistent with the traditions of the ' people "entirety failed. KINGS AND TYRANTS OPPOSED* . Having traced the formation of the i County Council and the developments which had taken place since 1888, Sir Laurehce pointed out that London was governed at the present, moment by a series of independent authorities having vei7 little connection with each other 5 and no systematic method of < dealing^ with the problems common to two ory; more of them. As to the future of Lon-, don government his views differed from/ - those of almost everybody else. It was . clear to him that the, final stage of London development depended upon > Very large problems, which were looming in. the future and! which included that o& tho organisation of the Empire. He predicted that whett UiOso problems were, settled the result would be to take London in a Very much extended sense, both as regards its area and the functions - with which it would be entrusted, oub , of the category' of a city and mako it aiv institution sui generis. But cVett that now outlook seemed to liim to depend on the idea of continuity which .could) be seen throughout the long history of. London. Across every page of it one could trace that reverence for ancient) custom which had stood up against tyrannical kings and bad citizens. That told for continuity and would govern the future as it hacl governed the past.