JS 
 
 3625 
 
 T48s 
 
 UC SOUTHERN RE 
 << OOO 
 
 
 i 
 
 9 i 
 
 9 =^? 
 
 4 =^s 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 lie 
 
 
 \j I 
 
 H A 
 
 M, 
 
 
 
 '^9> 
 
 
 
 
 
 FROM
 
 i 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 ^^
 
 THE STORY 
 
 OF TIIK 
 
 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL 
 
 A SERIES OF ARTICLES 
 
 BY 
 
 C|)e Cimes; 
 
 SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT. 
 
 ^ 
 
 London : 
 
 PniNTED AND PUBLISHKD BY GEORGE EdWARD WrIGHT, AT 
 
 The Times Office, Printing-house-square, London, E.G. 
 
 1907.

 
 ^yb 
 
 C3 
 
 :)(oZd 
 
 The Story of the 
 London County Council, 
 
 CO 
 
 January 21, 1907. 
 
 I. 
 
 Tlie Loudon County Council lias just conipletcnl 18 years of 
 
 >- oxlsteuce. It came into the world on January 17, 1889, when tlie 
 
 ^ first elections took place. Along with the other coimty councils 
 
 S it was brought into being by the Local Government Act, of 
 
 —* 1888, which was tlie work of a Conservative Government, and 
 
 more particularly of the late Lord l^itchie, who as Mr. Kitcliie 
 
 was ill eliarge of the measure. When emphasis is laid U])on the 
 
 (U^mocratic mission of the London County Council and on its 
 
 achievements for the benefit of London its origin should not be 
 
 forgotten. The oratoi's of the Progressive party, who at every 
 
 possible opportunity dilate with so much eloquence and satisfac- 
 
 2^ tion upon their owi\ record, might remember to whom thej- owe 
 
 S their municipal existence ; biit somehow they never do, unless it 
 
 CO be to complain of the inadeqiuite powers entrusted to them. Upon 
 
 —I that head there will be something to say pi'esently ; biit mean- 
 
 ^ time, if these things are to be thrown, as Progressives insist, 
 
 ^ into the scales of party politics, they may be reminded tliat 
 
 Radical Governments have been in power since the London 
 
 CoTUity Council was created by Conservatives, yet the only large 
 
 extension of power it has received was bestowed by the same 
 
 party, which has been heartily abused for its pains. 
 
 The Act of 1888 was received with no popiilar enthusiasm. It 
 is an exceedinglj' long and complicated measui'e, which no one, 
 except Mr. Eitchie himself, t<iok tlie trouble to master at the 
 time. Lord Roseberj", when he stood for election under it, 
 frankly confessed that he had not ; and it is more than probable 
 that to tliis day nobody has ever mastered it. Nevertheless it 
 has been on the whole decidedly and even markedly successful. 
 The county councils have added to the dignitv and the efficiency 
 
 1—2 
 
 .•?H,'J(i85
 
 of that system of local government wliieli is one of the most 
 salient features of our political organization. As a rnle, they do 
 their work well and in a businesslike way, they enjoy the respect 
 and confidence of the ratepayers in a far higher degree than the 
 smaller units of local administi'ation. But by the irony of 
 history the London Council, which aroused moi'e hopes and 
 attracted more attention than any other, has proved an exception 
 and has failed to satisfy public expectation. Public dissatisfaction 
 with tlie Metropolitan Board of Works had grown so acute that 
 the substitution of a more representative, important, and 
 responsible body was felt to be inevitable. As a matter of fact, 
 the Board of Works had done a great deal of good and lasting 
 work during its 33 years of existence, and it left behind it some 
 standing monuments of its activity which its successor has not 
 yet equalled or even ap]iroached. It ccmstructed the main 
 drainage and the Tlianies Embankment, which is the finest thing 
 that modern London has to show ; it effected vast improvements 
 hy the clearing of insanitary areas and the laying-out of new 
 streets ; it freed the bridges from tolls, provided some thousands 
 of acres of parks and open spaces, established the Fire Brigade, 
 and maintained it in a state of efficiency which made it a model 
 for other countries. That is not a bad record of positive achieve- 
 ment, and nothing was suggested against the integrity of the 
 members as a whole. As The Timea said, " They are honourable 
 men, whose hands are a))solutely pure in the sense of anj' direct 
 or legal liability, but a very large number are not innocent of 
 the negligence which tempts to ofiicial knavei'v." They were, 
 no doubt, too small a body for the adequate discharge of their 
 multifaricuis functions, their achninistration became weak, and 
 with a slack control abuses crept in. It is wholesome to recall all 
 this, becaiise a similar sitiiation is confronting their successors, 
 who are more munerous, but whose diTties have increased in a still 
 greater ratio and are being relegated more and moiv to the real 
 control of oflicials. And the members of tlie County Council are, 
 as will be presently shown by the mouth of an unimpeachable 
 witness, of very much the same character as those of the older 
 body. Tlie one difference is that tliey are directly responsi1)le to 
 the ratepayers ; aTul what that is worth we shall see when they 
 come up for judgment in the coiirse of a few weeks. 
 
 There was, then, a real demand for a new authority in London, 
 and much was hoped from it. No body ever came into existen.ce 
 with more general good will or fairer prospects. But from the 
 first, and even before the first, expectation was disappointed. 
 The hope generally entertained by all who were interested in the 
 government of London was that advantage might be taken of the 
 iipport unity toohlain a body of men whose position, ability, and 
 reiiiilation WDiild command popniar confidence and respect. 
 Newspapers of all shades of opinion expressed themselves in that 
 sense and deprecated the introduction of party politics as alien
 
 £o tfie occiisioii. Bui when (li«' (MiulitlafcH e;iiii<' (Vyi-ward ft wjIM 
 pcvcoived fliat, witli tlie exception of Lord Kosebei-y and Sir 
 Joliii Luhbock. who stood lor tlic City, and i)erliaps two or tliree 
 otiieis, they by no means answered to tiie cliaracter r<'«|uired. 
 The Radical journals, in ])articuiar, weiv acutely disai)point<'d 
 and did not hesitate to say so in very blunt terms. The /)(((/;/ 
 Chronicle in an article puljlislied on January 7, 1889, said that the 
 list of candidates was disappoint in^ji; :^ 
 
 Of the great bulk of the nominees we must frankly say they 
 are most of them but slij;htly sujjerior, while many of them are 
 actually inferior, to the old-fashioned type of candidate who 
 was sent np hy the vestries t« the moribund Board of 
 Works . . . they will he found as a hody less competent for 
 the practical work of etlicient and thrifty local administration 
 than the justices of the peace. If the London County Comicil 
 is to be composed of persons of this type it is very unlikely 
 that in our time there will arise a popular demand for an 
 extension of its powers or an elevation of its statiin. . . .It 
 is perfectly certain that the Council need not expect to be 
 entrusted with aiithority over us comparable witli that wliich 
 the municipal coxmcils of Glasjjow, Liverpool, Manchester, and 
 Birmingham wield over their constituents. 
 
 The Daily News regretted that " more men of tried capacity 
 and public distinction had not come forward " and thoitght that 
 '* it was hardly worth while to get rid of the Board of Works if 
 mere vestrymen were to continue." The same authority saitl two 
 days later " the list of candidates includes very few men oi 
 national reputation." It is worth while to reproduce these 
 expressions of opinion because they explain the apathy of the 
 electors and the failure of the Council to command the prestige 
 wliich it was hoped woidd signalize the constitution of the new 
 autliority and strengthen its hands. Public confidence was 
 further discouraged by the total failure of a great many candi- 
 dates to grasp the nature of tlie functions which they were eager 
 to imdertake. As the DaiJij Clironicle said, what was wanted was 
 to get " the best possible administration of local atl'airs," and to 
 that end the electors " should endeavour to get the County 
 Council composed of the best men of business whose services 
 were attainable." But the candidates apparently thought the 
 Council was to be a legislative body, and showed much less con- 
 cern about administering the powers entrusted to them by Parlia- 
 ment than about obtaining other vast powers which had been 
 withlield. Their election addresses teemed with large promises 
 and ambitious programmes, which included such trifling matters 
 as control of the police, the licpior traflic, the City companies and 
 the meti'opolitan cliarities, absorption of the City Coi'poration. 
 the acquisition of the water supply, gas, and tlie markets ;
 
 tile taxation of ground- rents, equalization of rates and 
 alteration of the incidence of rating from occupier to o\^Tier ; 
 Sunday closing, local option, and other things with which the 
 Council had nothing whatever to do. In short, it was a grand 
 display of fireworks by pure faddists and unpi'actical schemers. 
 In vain Lord Rosebery, who delivered a number of exti"emely 
 sensible speeches, rebuked all this foolish and ignorant nonsense. 
 He said that politics were not the business of the County Council 
 at all :— 
 
 It is no part of tlie dnty of the London County Council tf) 
 discuss wliat powers ought to be heaped on it ; it will be 
 mainly occupied in organization. The hands of the County 
 Council will l)e too full for the next three years to undertake 
 any more business than it has already, in fact I doubt rather 
 wlietlier it will be able to adequately discharge all the duties 
 that will devolve upon it, and the question of the enlargement 
 of its powders will rest not with the County Coimcilbut with the 
 Imperial Parliament. 
 
 He pleaded for a practical view of the Councirs functions, 
 while Tlie Tixics and other newspapers pointed out timt the way 
 for the Coinicil to obtain sundrj' ])owers and prerogatives 
 withheld was to prove to Parliament its right to fuller confi- 
 dence by the excellent accomplishment of its actmil work. But 
 this good advice fell on deaf ears, and the c(msequence is that 
 the Council has never obtained them, although those who most 
 desired them have had a free hand in its affairs. Public 
 dissatisfaction with the candidates and their misconception 
 of the duties entrusted to them was further increased by the 
 mana'uvring at the first election. In all the brazen annals of 
 political electioneering there are few more cynical pages tiiau 
 this. The election was snjiposed to be non-political, and the 
 introduction of party i»oIilics was sti-ongly deprecated by public 
 men of the greatest infiuence, including Mr. Gladstone aiul Lord 
 liosebery ; and the same line was taken by the newspapers. 
 Lord Kosebery declared in his election address to the City 
 constituency that " absolute freedom from party politics was 
 the only basis which he coiild accept," and he admitted that 
 if the election were to be on i)arty lines he would have no chance 
 of election. Sir John Lubbock, liis fellow- candidate for the 
 sanu^ constituency, wrote to tlie Dailij Clironu-le protesting 
 against being described as standing as a Liberal UnioTiist, and 
 exjiressing " a strong feeling that the selection of representa- 
 tives oil (lie County Council oiiglil luit (o he (letci'Miincd by 
 |>arly coiisitici'al ions." This \>\v:y was eiidorsed l>,\' a leading 
 arliclc, wliicli cxpi-cssed ( 1h> vi(>w (hat "the duties which a 
 county coiUM'il has to |)errorm are by no means political." The 
 result oi' all this was that political considerations weJ'e largely
 
 (lisvo{!,';ii'(UMl by (lie clcclors, \vl\o veliii-iiod Sii- Jf)liii Lnbboek niid 
 Lord lv(>s(!b(vry afc tiic licnd ol' llio poll, toft'otlior witli (ilJ oMioi- 
 nuMiibovs jn'olessiii}:: Libci-al oi* iiatlif-nl politics nj^aiiist 47 
 Conservatives. There would iiave been notliinj;- to ferret, in this 
 — indeed the veturii of Sir -lolni Jjubboek and Lord Kosebery 
 was a very fortunate tiling lor tlie Couneil — if the disregard of 
 party politics had heen maintained ; but tlie temptation was 
 too great. Tlie Radical ne\vspa])ers iiailed tlie result as a great 
 vict<iry for the party, and Mr. -lohn Morley in a speech at 
 Siiedieid claimed the elections as proof of London syinpalhy 
 with Jiadical party politics. 
 
 Thenceforward the Council was committed to party procedure, 
 which has had a very had eli'ect upon its conduct. The 
 majority, which consisted cliiell^' of tliose who had made (he 
 most lavisli promises to their constituents, were continued b.\ 
 success at tlie polls in their intentions, and in order to he in a 
 position to give effect to them they jiromptly proceeded to treat 
 the minority in a spirit of the narrowest partisanship. The first 
 duty of the new hody was to elect 19 aldermen, and here again 
 a trick was ])layed. The majority, who had already formed 
 themselves into a compact body, made some feint of inviting the 
 rest to confer with them and of considering a list of aldermen to 
 he proposed liy the minority. The latter accordingly drew up 
 a list, not on party lines, Init containing the names of three 
 gentlemen agreeable to the majority ; hnt when the matter came 
 to voting, the majority simply elected their o\vn list and ignored 
 the noininees of the minority with one exception. A few Liberal 
 members voted for Lord Meath in preference to some obscure 
 candidate on their own list, and he was elected. Tlie political 
 character of their proceeding was placed beyond doubt by the 
 fact that it followed the advice of the ])arty organs which urged 
 that the election of aldermen should ))e carried out on i)arty 
 lines. The full Council, thus constituted, then proceeded to 
 complete its organization in the same sjiirit by electing the 
 Chairman, vice-chairman, and deputy chairman all from the 
 same party. Lord Rosebery was doubtless elected Chaii-mau 
 instead of Sir John Lubbock — who had headed the poll, acted 
 as provisional chairman, and enjoyed equal confidence — simply 
 because Lord Eosebery was then a Home Ruler and supposed to 
 be a more " advanced " politician than Sir John, who was a 
 Liberal Unionist. 
 
 But why rake up all this ancient history ? Because the past 
 gives the key to the present ; the position of the Coimcil can 
 only be ^Ulderstood in the liglit of its history. As it began so it 
 has continued. It has never eujoyed the prestige or secured the 
 general contidence which are necessary to make it (lie etiicieiit. 
 diguilied, and representative body that it ought In be. In fact 
 it has lost ground. Its failure is reflected in the elections. On 
 the first occasion, 18 yejirs ago, the electors in general displayetl,
 
 s 
 
 for the reasons given, nnuli less interest than had been expected. 
 Sir John Lubbock and Lord Rosebery, who were the most dis- 
 tinguislied candidates and openly standing for good administra- 
 tion dissociated from polities, received more than 8,000 votes 
 apiece ; but no other successful candidate approached tliat 
 number. Few exceeded 3,000, and many had less than 2,000 
 votes cast for them. " Little excitement was shovvTi in any part 
 of London," says the cold chronicle of the Annual Register, 
 " and in few cases did more than one-half of the electors go to 
 the poll." In 1895 a I'ally was made. Dissatisfaction with the 
 party in power, which had in the first Council been checked in 
 its exuberant aspirations and kept to business by the influence of 
 Lord Rosebery, Sir John Lubbock, Lord Lingen, and other men 
 of experience, ))ecame acute, and a seri(uis contest took place, in 
 which 540,000 votes were cast and the Moderate party secured a 
 majority of 30,000, but only an equal number of seats with the 
 other side ; and this eciuality was nullified by the prepondei-ant 
 votes of Progressive aldermen. In the last two elections only 40 
 and 45 per cent, of the voters went to the poll. In the last of all 
 tlie highest proportiou in any constitiiency was 64 per cent. ; in 
 six constituencies less than one-third of tlie electors took the 
 trouble to vote, and in numy others the niuuber was not much 
 greater. The thing had become a farce. 
 
 And all this time the same party has been in power. It 
 gradually acquired the name *' Progressive," how, nobody knows. 
 These names come by some indefinable process and gradually 
 attach themselves. Some candidates at the first election called 
 themselves Progressive Reformers ; probably they took the term 
 from the Radical " Progress " party in Germany. For some 
 time they were called inditterently Progressists and Progressives, 
 \mtil the latter word won general acceptance. But thej^ cer- 
 tainl}' identified themselves, as has been shown, witli tlie Radical 
 party in politics. The term " Moderate," applied to tlie otlier 
 Municipal party, arose in a similar manner. It is to be 
 observed that candidates of both parties appealed to the electors 
 ill 1880 as municipal reformers ; but some wei'e progi'essive or 
 theoretical, others moderate or practical, reformers. So the 
 names arose. As municipal politics stand at present, the 
 honoured chiefs of the first County Coiuicil, to whom it owed 
 whatever prestige it had, would certainly be moderate reformers, 
 whei'i>as tlie Pi-ogi-essives Jiave become more and more closely 
 identified with Socialism, wherein they have nu>rely anticipated, 
 by very little, the course of their party in Pai'liainent. But, in 
 any case, the one party has been in power from the (irst. For a 
 few years following 18'J5 it had the salutory experience ol an 
 opposition as powerful as Itself, and the inlluence of this period 
 is seen in (h<' Council's I'ecords ; Iml loi; the rest it has held 
 undisi)iited sway, whidi has grown less and less balanced ol' 
 late years. Now this is not good for any party. The theory of
 
 party ft'oveniiiionf |)i'esup])()ses a sti-oiip; 0|)|)<)siti()n and an occa- 
 sional c'han};o of power. That was druiiiiiied into oiir ears often 
 enouf;h in tlie last Parliament. Too long a lease of power 
 demoralizes its holders, blunts their sense of responsibility, 
 narrows their views, and intoxicates them with self-esteem. It 
 is more important, no donl)t, for a legislative than for an admini- 
 strative bodj', which has, indeed, no business with parties at all ; 
 for i)arty means a policy leased on theory, whereas the only 
 policy of ail adiiiiiiistrative body should 1)e the efhcient discharge 
 of the duties assigned to it. But the Progressives on the London 
 County Council have never taken that view of their functions. 
 Tliey chose to constitute themselves a ])arty with a policy based 
 on theory, in the teeth of the protestations and advice of the 
 ablest men among them, and they have always been more con- 
 cerned in ]nishing their policy than in discharging their plain 
 duties. The nature of that policy and its results will be 
 examined in subsequent articles; here it is enougli to say that 
 they iiave been in power too long for their own healtii and the 
 public good.
 
 January 29, 1907. 
 
 II. 
 
 The duties assigned to the London County Couneil l)y Pavlia- 
 meut are numerous, varied, and important ; they have never 
 satisfied its ambition, wliieli is boundless ; but they liave fully 
 engaged its capacity, whicli is limited. They are less extensive 
 than the duties successfully discharged l)y other municipal 
 authorities both in this and in other countries ; but that is 
 et)unterbalanced by the great size of the area administered 
 (121 square miles) and its vast popidation (4! millions), which 
 render many of the fimctions of local govei'nraent proportionately 
 more onerous than in smaller and less populous places. Tluit 
 must not be forgotten when its work comes to be examined ; but 
 at the same time it is necessary to insist upon the fact that some 
 of the most important public duties are in London discharged l)y 
 other bodies, and to distinguish, tlieir spheres of action. This is 
 necessary because the less modest Comity Councillors liave con- 
 tracted an Tinl'ortunate habit of magnifying their own achieve- 
 ments in a boastful manner, of which Mr. John Burns, ever a 
 great performer on the big drum, has just given us a 
 characteristic example. They were wont to declare very loTidly 
 that London is the liest governed, the healthiest, and generally 
 the most deserving-of-superlatives city in the world, and to take 
 all the credit for this envialile condition to themselves. They 
 give none to the other public bodies wliicli share the administra- 
 tion, none to philanthropy or private enterprise. This practice 
 has grown so common that it is taken as a matter of course, but it 
 is really very remarkable and quite peculiar to the Progressive 
 London County Councillor. The spokesmen of other administra- 
 tive bodies may defend their administration when attacked, and 
 on laying down tlieir otlice or appealing to the electorate tliey 
 may give a favourable account of their stewardship ; but in doing 
 so they exercise some restraint and assume some ap[)earance oi' 
 modesty. Such exi^ressions as " we may have made mistakes," 
 " we have done our best," " we regret this or that state of 
 things " are usual ; they do not claim jiei-fection or a monopoly 
 of virtue and they do not assume the credit for things done by 
 some one else, London Cimnty Councillors do. They seem (o 
 live in a stupor of admiration at their own greatness, wisdom, 
 and benevolence. This is tiie picture drawn for ns in a recent 
 annual review of {\\v ('(dincirs work liy ihe Ihen Chairman : — 
 
 I find (iiat tlie ('(Hiii<-il is hccnniiiig iiioi-c iiiid niucc Ihe 
 gnai'dian- may I say Ihe giiacdian angel V-of the ciliziMi. 
 Indeed it now follows him and guards Iiiiii fioni the cradle to 
 the gi'avc. It looks after liis health, personal safety, and
 
 alfliclcd rclativos ; it pi'otc'cls him from ail sorts of public 
 iiuisaiu-es ; it endeavours to sec that lie is decently lioused. or 
 itself houses him ; it keeps an eye on his coal cellar and larder ; 
 it endeavours to make his city more beautiful and convenient, 
 and provides electric motors and (presently) steam yachts for 
 his convenience and pleasure ; it looks after his municipal 
 purse and corporate projxM-ty, and treasures his historical 
 nu'mories ; it tends and t^uriches his broad acres and small 
 open s[)aces and cheers him with music ; it sees that those 
 lie emi)]()ys, directly or indirectly, enjoy tolerable wag-es and 
 fair conditions ; it speaks up for him in J'arlianient, both as to 
 what he wants and what lie does not want, and, last and 
 {greatest of all, it now looks after his children, good and bad, 
 hoping-, if it is possible, to make them better and wiser than 
 their progenitors. 
 
 This poetical outburst offers in every line an easy target for the 
 shafts of satire ; Init satire is not the object of these articles ; 
 arid the citizen, who is followed and guarded from the ci-adle to 
 the grave, whether he likes it or not, will readily supply his own 
 comments. 
 
 The immediate point is the sober fact that the most 
 important of the services just emunerated, except education, are 
 really i-endered by other bodies in a far larger degree than by 
 the County Council. Safety, for example, is mainly the affair of 
 the [lolice ; healtk falls to the liorougli councils, which are 
 chiefly responsilile for sanitation, to the Metropolitan Asylums 
 B(_)ard, which with the borough councils deals with infectious 
 disease, and to the Water Board, which looks after the most 
 important of all healtk factors. There are also the hospitals, a 
 somewhat im]K)rtant element, and the City Corporation, which is 
 the Port Sanitary Authority, and with neither of these has the 
 County Council any tiling wliatcvei- to do. Do they count foi" 
 nothing? Do they reiuler no public sei vices? Then it may lu^ 
 pointed out that private enterprise, philanthroiiic and com- 
 mercial, has done a great deal more for housing, for ])eau(irK'a- 
 tion, and convenience than the County Council, and that the 
 citizen has his own direct i-epresentatives in Parliament, who 
 are sent there to siieak up for him and have generally been 
 chosen to oppose the influence of the County Council. The very 
 fact that the other agencies mentioned and many more do exist and 
 share in carrying on the public business of Loudon is a constant 
 grievance to Progressive County Councillors, who want to have 
 everything in their own hands ; but recognition is confined to 
 the shoi-tcomiiigs of these objectionable bodies ; their merits are 
 claimed by the County Council. In sliiu't, everything good in 
 London, including the " historical memories," is somehow put 
 down to its credit ; and everything bad to some one else's account. 
 
 What is the reason for this insistent self-glorilication ? It
 
 12! 
 
 renders the Council ridienloiis and must be very offensive to 
 many members. The only explanation is the political programme 
 and partj' administration of the Progressive majority. The whole 
 business reeks of the platform. The brag is not pei-sonal, but 
 political and intended for the electors, who have to be persiiaded 
 that the Progressive party can do nothing wrong and nobody else 
 can do anything right. In private life the braggarts are doubt- 
 less as modest as other men, but as members of the party they must 
 throw modesty to the winds and })low the trumpet until our ears 
 crack. Only a day or two ago the gentleman who was until 
 recently chairman of the Higliways Committee of the Council 
 referi'ed in the public Press to the South London tramways, 
 which it has built and managed, as " the most comfortable, 
 durable, U])-to-date, and best managed system of electric tram- 
 ways of any city in the world." These shrill superlatives, 
 aj)i)lied to a fairly good but not at all exceptional service, woidd 
 not make a favourable impression even if they came from a less 
 interested source ; ))ut wlien a modest luan is impelled by party 
 feeling to extol his own work in such extravagant terms the. 
 result is to inspire distrust of his other statements and of all 
 those which issue from the same influence. The party is 
 evidently hai'd pushed to reconcile performance with promises 
 and pretensions, and no accoimt of its doings put fonvard 
 by its o\Mi members can be safely accepted without careful 
 scrutiny. 
 
 Duties anb Powers of the Council. 
 The annual report prepared Ijy the Clerk to the Council 
 contains an exhaustive list of its powers and duties arranged under 
 tour headings : — 
 
 County Services. 
 
 Ancient Monuments 
 
 Charities 
 
 Coronet's 
 
 County Boundary and 
 
 County liepi-esentatiou 
 County Council PJIections 
 County Councils Association 
 
 Expenses 
 County Medical OHiccis ol 
 
 Health 
 County Property 
 Comity Rati* 
 County Records 
 Criminal I'rosecutions 
 Drowned Bodies 
 Emigration 
 Fertilizers and Feeding 
 
 SlutVs 
 
 Guardians of tlie Poor 
 
 Highways 
 
 Licensing Appeals 
 
 Loan Societies 
 
 Local Medical and Sanitary 
 
 Officers 
 Lunatic Asylums 
 Main Roads 
 
 Midwives, Supervision of 
 Motor Cars 
 Parish Boundaries 
 J'aupcr Lunatic Grant 
 Places oi R(>iigious Worsliii) 
 Poor Law Medical Exi)enscs 
 Public Vaccinators 
 Quarter Sessions of County 
 
 of London
 
 l:'. 
 
 (Jomilij Services {continued) . 
 of Births and Small Holdings 
 
 Kegistrars 
 Deaths Grant 
 
 Koyal Patriotic Fund Cor- 
 poration 
 
 Scliool Fees for Pauper 
 CMiildren Grant 
 
 Scientific and Literary 
 Societies 
 
 Standing Joint Committee 
 Transfer of Powers 
 Teachers in Poor Law 
 
 Scliools Grant 
 Valuations for Estate Duty 
 Wild Birds Protection 
 
 County anu Municipal Services. 
 
 Barbed Wire 
 
 Bridges 
 
 By-Laws for Good Kale and 
 
 Government 
 Destructive Insects 
 Diseases of Animals 
 Kducation 
 
 Kducation, Teciniical 
 Employment of Children 
 Explosives 
 Fisli Conservancy 
 Gas Meter Testing 
 Inebriate Reformatories 
 Light Railways 
 Local Stamps 
 Locomotives on Roads 
 
 to 
 
 Military Bands 
 Parliamentary Bills 
 Parliamentary Elections 
 Petroleum 
 Polling Districts 
 Prevention of Cruelty 
 
 Children 
 Racecourses 
 Registration of Electors 
 Rivers Pollution Prevention 
 Seats for Shop Assistants 
 Shop Hours 
 
 Small Dwellings Acquisition 
 Theatres and Music Halls 
 Traffic Regulation 
 Weights and Measures 
 
 Municipal Services. 
 
 Bands 
 
 Buildings, Regulation of 
 
 Common Lodging Houses 
 
 Coroners' Courts 
 
 Dairies, Cowsheds, and 
 
 Milkshops 
 Dangerous and Neglected 
 
 Structures 
 Dangerous and Noxious 
 
 Businesses 
 Disused Burial Grounds 
 Drains, Water Closets, and 
 
 Cesspools 
 Electric Lighting 
 Embankments 
 Epidemic Diseases 
 Factories and Woi'ksho[)s 
 Ferries 
 Fire Brigade 
 Floods, Prevention of 
 
 Gas Testing 
 
 Horniman Museum 
 
 Housing of the Working Classes 
 
 Infectious Diseases 
 
 Main Drainage 
 
 Mortuaries 
 
 Nuisances 
 
 Oftensive Trades 
 
 Parks and Open Spaces 
 
 Post-mortem rooms 
 
 Seamen's Lodging Houses 
 
 Smoke Consumption 
 
 Street Improvements 
 
 Streets, Formation of 
 
 Streets, Naming of, and 
 
 Numbering of Houses 
 Subways 
 
 Thames Steamboats 
 Tramways 
 Tunnels
 
 14 
 
 Acting in default 
 
 Appeals 
 
 Canals Protection 
 
 Central Criminal Court 
 
 District Surveyors 
 
 Dock Companies' Works 
 
 Dwelling-lioiises on Low- 
 lying Land 
 
 Equalization of Rates Fund 
 
 Historical Buildings. Monu- 
 ments and Woi'ivs of Art 
 
 Hydraulic Power Company's 
 Works 
 
 Ice Creams or any similar 
 Commodity 
 
 ludoor Paupers 
 
 Lifaut Life Protection 
 
 Lee Conservancy 
 
 Lee Valley Drainage Com- 
 mission 
 
 Loans, Advance of 
 
 Loans, Sanction to 
 
 Local Sewers 
 
 London Goveiinnent Act, 
 1891) 
 
 Special Londom Services. 
 
 London Statistics 
 
 Markets 
 
 Metropolitan Borough Coun- 
 cillors 
 
 National Telephone Com- 
 pany's Works 
 
 Overhead Wires 
 
 Railway Bridges 
 
 Railway Comjianies' Works 
 
 Sky Signs 
 
 Special Inquiries 
 
 Street Obstructions 
 
 Streets in more than one 
 Metropolitan Borough 
 
 Superanniiation and J^rovi- 
 dent Fund 
 
 Thames Conservancy 
 
 Timher Stacks 
 
 Transfer of I'owers 
 
 Tribunal of Ai)peal 
 
 University of London 
 
 Valuation Lists 
 
 Water Board, Metropolitan 
 
 Water Supply 
 
 This formidalih' catalogue may suggest tliat the passion for 
 magnifying the services of the Council extends to its permanent 
 f)flicers and invades its dry oHicial returns : hut let us rather 
 ascrihe it to thoroughness. Every it^m is supported hy chapter 
 and verse and explained in a very concise and convenient 
 manner. A large munher refer to formal, permissive, and super- 
 visory powers of little ]i radical moment, others to the duty of 
 nominating delegates to other administrative hodies ; hut quite 
 a sufiicient numher of active, heavy, and serious duties remain to 
 occu])y the full time and energy of the 137 g(»ntl(Mnen who com- 
 ])ose the Coinicil. The most important of these duties, with the 
 exce))tion of education, were inherited from the Board of Works ; 
 thej" comprise main drainage, fire prevention, parks and open 
 spaces, Thames hridges and tiumels, street improvements, huild- 
 ing supervision, artisans' dwellings, tramways, and London 
 nninicipal tinance. With regard to most of these the powers and 
 duties transfei-red from the Board of Works in 1880 have since 
 heen enlarged by numerous snhsequent Acts, notably the Housing 
 of the Working Classes Acts, the London Building Act of 1894, 
 the Public Health (London) Act of 1891, and the London C4overn- 
 inent Act of 1899. Then there are some miscellaneous items 
 which were transferred at the forniation of tlie Council from the 
 justices of the ])eace ; the most im)iortant is the case of pauper
 
 1,') 
 
 limaties, Imt this is shared hy the Metropolitan Asylums Board. 
 An analogous duty is the provision of reformatory and industrial 
 schools. Another, which lias excited more puhlic interest, is the 
 jyranting of music and dancing licences. A different group com- 
 prises certain supervisorj^ powers with regard to factories and 
 workshops, shops and common lodging houses. Powers more 
 recently conferred relate to regulations restricting the employ- 
 ment of children, and to the provision of Thames steamboats. 
 Some particular duties concerning the milk supply, nuisances, 
 offensive trades, and other matters connected with public health 
 ought also to be mentioned. 
 
 For the purpose of performing these multifarious functions the 
 members of the Council are distriljuted in a1>out a score of stand- 
 ing committees, with occasional special commitees and sub- 
 committees. Already during the life-time of the first Council the 
 constitution of the committees came in for severe criticism on the 
 ground of the political manoeuvring of the dominant party. At 
 the outset the first selection of committees was very haphazard, 
 as the Chairman (Lord Rosebery) said in his review of the first 
 year. It was bound to be so in a new body, of which 1)oth the 
 work to l)e done and the inclinations of the members were un- 
 known quantities. It was a pi'ocess of settling down which gave 
 no opportunity for party organization ; and it so happened that 
 in the majority of the committees the gentlemen chosen to be 
 chairmen on the spur of the moment were not members of the 
 dominant party. They were elected because they appeared to the 
 lest to be the fittest men. But when the connnittees were dis- 
 solved and v(H'onstituted in 1890 the rrogressive majority altered 
 all that, and arranged tlie connnittees so that they should be 
 under the control of the party. The usual plan is for members to 
 signify' on what conunittees thej' would like to serve ; and, of 
 course, some committees are more popular than others, so that 
 there must be some adjustment. The previous arrangement had 
 turned out quite satisfactory according to the Chairman, who said 
 timt " bj' a natural process of adjustment and selection he 
 th(mght the committees had settled down in having the men most 
 able to attend them, tiie m(»n most interested in them, so that at 
 last they had got the round pegs in the round holes." And with 
 regard to the chairmen of ccmunittees lie tlumght the Council was 
 " singularly to be congratulated on th(> results it had arrived 
 at." He was speaking, of course, lit a (•(>m])limentary vein, but 
 he could hardly have said this nuicii if the arrangement had been 
 really bad. It did not suit party tactics, however, and it was 
 changed. Conservative mem hers were not allowed to sit on com- 
 mittees on which they had expressed a desii'e to serve, and 
 Radical members were placed on more conmiittees than they could 
 attend. Mr. Brudent^U Carter, who was one of the oi-iginal 
 members of the Council, drew public attention to these things, 
 and criticized the committee system at l«>ngth. A controver.sy
 
 16 
 
 followed in which the working: of the committees was warmly 
 defended hy several Councillors, not all of one party ; but the 
 charge of packing the conunittees for party purposes was not 
 answered. The same practice evident!}" still continues. Out of 41 
 chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees. 38 are Progressives 
 and the manning of committees gives them an overwhelming 
 majority on eacli. They have an aggregate majority in the com- 
 mittees of more than three to one, wliicli rises in some cases to 
 four and Ave to one. The notorious Works Committee is com- 
 posed solely of Progressives, so that in regard to the working 
 of this peculiarly important and contentious hranch of municipal 
 activity 14 whole constituencies, including the City, are practi- 
 cally disfranchised. 
 
 The meaning of this extraordinarily complete, exclusive, and 
 dogged pai'ty grip of the business of the Council will be discussed 
 in the next article, and its effects on administration in subse- 
 quent ones.
 
 17 
 
 January 31, 1907. 
 
 III. 
 
 It has lieen shown in the previous articles that the Council, 
 called upon to coiulnct practical allairs which had, and — in the 
 declared opinion of liadical newspapers and eminent Kadical 
 statesmen, in and out of the Council — ought to have, nothing to 
 do with party polities, has nevertheless persistentlj' conducted 
 them on party lines ; that in order to do so it has manipidated 
 its adm in i strati A'e machinery in defiance of the principles of 
 democratic representation ; and that in order to commend the 
 i-esults to the electors the party spokesmen have adopted a 
 practice of extravagant self-laudation, which other men do not 
 jiei'init themselves, associated with detraction of other bodies 
 discharging similar functions and composed of similar elements, 
 including many Coimty Councillors. The explanation of all this 
 is that the partj' started with a programme or policy which has 
 nothing to do with actual administration. It was a political 
 programme, and administrative office was regarded merely as a 
 lever for carrying it (mt. Tliat is clear from the election 
 addresses of candidates for the first Council, to which reference 
 lias already been made. They called themselves Radicals or 
 Liberals, and were claimed as such by the party organs ; but 
 the measures the}' advocated and put forward as their programme 
 were inspired wholly by Socialist teaching. Very likely many 
 of them did not know it, and some may not know it now ; 
 apparently they resent lieing identified with the Socialists. But 
 tlie word " socialist " is not an official title ; it is a descriptive 
 epithet, which covers a great many shades of opinion. It came 
 into use about 75 years ago in connexion with the commimistic 
 scliemes of liobert Owen, and first appeared in print in the Poor 
 Maw's Guard'uDi, nn Owewite paper, in 1833. It had no precise 
 significance, and it has had none since ; but the philosophical 
 basis of every variety of Socialistic doctrine has always been the 
 same — pure materialism. The ultimate aim is to raise mankind 
 by material means, and the means contemplated bj' most forms 
 of Socialism are economic. This aspect predominates so much 
 that Socialism has for all practical purposes become a purely 
 economic theoiy. The methods of fulfilment advocated vary 
 widely. There are very strcmg differences of opinion between 
 difi'erent organizations of professed Socialists, which are no moi'c 
 united than any other sects, and even between individual 
 members of the same organization. {Xatnram c.v])c//(/s fuvcd. 
 tcDiuni iiaqiic recAtrret is a profound and primitive truth which 
 Socialism daily denies and daily illustrates.) But they all rely 
 in some degree upon the siibstitntion of collective for individual 
 
 2
 
 18 
 
 ownership of property and npon what they call the abolition 
 of capital, with a view to making the material conditions of 
 life more equal among the different sections of the com- 
 mnnity. 
 
 That was the idea which inspired the policy of the Pro- 
 gressive party from the first, and inspires it still, whether the 
 menihers know it or not. The aim is to exalt the humble and 
 put down tiie proud in a material sense, or, in other words, to 
 rectify the inequalities of cii'ciuustance which we see abont us. 
 Socialists are often accused of desiring mainly to pull do\^^l, 
 and no doubt most of them think that their objects cannot l^e 
 attained witlumt pulling down ; but that is the means, not the 
 end, though it tends to become the end. The whole history of 
 the movement shows that it originates in an emotional sensibility 
 which is excited by the spectacle of l)odily suffering and that its 
 primary piu'pose is to raise the poor and ameliorate their lot. 
 To deny their sincerity in this is a mistake. On the other 
 hand, it is an equal mistake for Socialists or Progressives to 
 claim a monopoly of merit and deny to others the credit for 
 equali.y good intentions merely because thoy differ in opinion 
 about the means of giving effect to them. This self-righteous 
 frame of mind has a sinister influence, because tlie consciousness 
 of superior virtue, which the London Progressives exhibit in 
 such a marked degree, leads men to the crooked path of 
 justifying conduct by motives and promoting ends which 
 they believe to be good by means which they know to be 
 bad. The order of Jesuits is not the only body versed in 
 casuistry. 
 
 The means embodied in the Progressive programme are 
 those which the occasion woitld at once suggest to any one at 
 all conversant with Socialistic dogmas. The Council was a 
 nuniicipal body, newly constructed, and the opportunities it 
 offered for realizing collective o\\Tiership were municipal. That 
 was the burden of the original programme, and has been the 
 burden ever since. The Council was to absorb everything it 
 coiild in a peaceful way — water, gas, markets, charities, docks, 
 the liquor trade, &c. — and in order to pay for tliem it was to 
 command the revenues of tlie City Corjioration and the Livery 
 Companies, and to readjust taxation. The control of the police 
 is a corollary of collective ownership, but it was advocated 
 mainly because they had been employed inider the Government 
 to prevent public meetings which were thought likely to cause 
 disorder, and this was resented ))y Socialists. All these pro- 
 posals, and some others, ))nt forward rather promiscuously at 
 the time of tlu^ lirst election, became extended and consolidated 
 info a formal party programme before the scK'oiid eiecti(m in 
 18U2. it was adopted by the Coiincil of the Metropolitan 
 Radical Federation in December, 18i)l, and it contained the 
 following main provisions, briellj' stated : —
 
 10 
 
 1. Trade union rate of wages and scale yf hours for all 
 Council contracts. 
 
 2. Eight-hours day, and not less than trade union wages 
 for all emploijes of the Council. 
 
 3. Direct employment of labour wherever possible. 
 
 4. (a) The exercise of existing powers to take over the 
 tramways ; (b) additional powei-s to be obtained to work 
 them. 
 
 5. The maximum eight-hours day to be a condition prece- 
 dent in all undertakings getting new Parliamentary powers 
 in Loiulon. 
 
 (). To obtain powers to take over the plant, &c., of gas 
 companies at valuation. 
 
 7. To take over the water supply. 
 
 8. Control and management of the police, control of 
 Trafalgar-square, Royal parks, and other open spaces of 
 London. 
 
 9. Municipalization of Coven t- garden, Spitalfields, and 
 other markets now in private hands without compensation for 
 alleged monopoly rights. 
 
 10. lievision of local taxation, including division of rates 
 between owner and occupier ; special taxation of land values ; 
 rating of empty houses and vacant land ; special assessment 
 of " betterment " on property improved at the public cost ; 
 absorption of uneai-ned increment by a municipal death duty 
 on real estate. 
 
 11. The building and maintenance bj- the Council itself of 
 artisan dwellings and common lodging-houses. 
 
 12. Stop all sales of land already or at any future time 
 belonging to the Council. 
 
 13. Pay close attention to the efficient administration of 
 the sanitary laws (by the Acstries) aiul the Factory Acts (by 
 the Home Office), witli a view to making proper representa- 
 tions in cases of default or neglect. 
 
 14. To promote the establishment of democratic district 
 councils to absorb the existing vestries and district 
 l)oards. 
 
 15. Complete inclusion of the City Corporation within the 
 sphere of the Coiinty Council, and reclamation of "London's 
 neglected heritage " in the property of the Livery Companies. 
 
 1(5. Municipalization of tiie docks by the formation of a 
 rei)resentative dock trust. 
 
 17. Promote a petition against leasehold enfranchisement. 
 
 18. All hospitals, asylums, and dispensaries to be under 
 miuiicipal control and, beyond pi'esent endowments, supported 
 by the rates. 
 
 To these sufficiently extensive proposals there were subse- 
 quently appended several others of a still more visionary and
 
 20 
 
 revolutioTiarj' character. If realized, they would render the 
 London County Conncil a sort of sovereign power practicallj^ 
 independent of Parlia)nent and the Crown, Some went even 
 further than this, and were designed to correct the physical 
 and physiological mistakes of Nature at the decree of the 
 Council. The whole tiling, with the exception of the trade union 
 clauses, was of jmrely Socialistic origin. The comparatively 
 feasiJde suggestions quoted ahove emanated from the Fahian 
 Society and were emJmdied in a little hook called " Tlie Limdon 
 Progranuiie," 1)y Mr. Sidney Wehh, who seems to provide the 
 JM'ogressive party witli all its ideas and arguments. The Fahian 
 Society, of whicli he is a member, represents the most moderate 
 section of professed Socialists and is the sponsor, if not the 
 father, of Municipal Socialism as a policy. It is to he congratu- 
 lated on its success, wiiich constitutes the only positive results 
 that organized Socialism lias yet achieved anywhere ; it may be 
 called a success of moderation. The same programme, with some 
 extensions and modifications, has now been adopted by the Inde- 
 pendent Labour party, a Socialistic organization of more advanced 
 views than the Faliian Society, and has been put forward as a 
 manifesto in view of the coming election. The items are as 
 follows, in a condensed form : — - 
 
 1. Knlargomeiit of the Council, in order to increase the 
 Socialist and Labour representation. 
 
 2. Unification of municipal functions by absorption of the 
 Metropolitan Asylums Board, Water Board, Thames Conser- 
 vancy, and " those of the borough councils which liave been 
 found by experience to rightly lielong to a central rather than 
 a local body." 
 
 [This probalily means those which elected Municipal 
 Reform candidates at the last election. The previous pro- 
 gramme advocated the formation of district councils, but now 
 that they are formed those which do not vote to order are to 
 be aliolished.] 
 
 As sole antlioi-ity the County Council to have control of 
 the rates and to b<» the valuation authority, with equalization 
 of rates, taxation of land values, unoccupied property, &c. 
 
 3. Inclusion under the Council of contiguous snluirbs all 
 round London. 
 
 4. The Council to take oA'er tlu' docks, to supply electri- 
 city, not only to London, but to a large area outside, and to 
 own all thv means of jiublic locomotion and conveyance of 
 goods, including railways, tubes, trams, and omnibuses. 
 
 5. Tiie Council to supervise, finance, and eventually take 
 over the hospitals, &c. 
 
 ('). The Council to acquire daily farms and sell milk. 
 7. The Council to ac(piii'e coal mines and retail c(^al at 
 cost lU'ice,
 
 21 
 
 8. The Council " to orj^aiiize :i system of ceiitnil anil loeal 
 markets and slaughterhouses in conjunction witii the borough 
 councils " (? the ones left). 
 
 9. The Council to control the police. " The duty of ke^'p- 
 ing order is a civic one and should l)e in the hands of the 
 direct representatives of the citizens. The police recpiired for 
 national purposes would, of course, remain under tiie present 
 system." 
 
 10. With regard to housing " the extravagant method of 
 I)ulling down slums at the expense of the counuunity must he 
 linally abandoned and the cost of such work throwni upon the 
 owners of insanitarj- property." The Council to buj' and con- 
 trol areas contiguous to London and build garden suburljs. 
 
 11. Direct employment to be improved by a 48 hours week 
 and a iiiinhni(m wage of IU)s. a week : Works Department to be 
 I'x tended. 
 
 12. Council to supply meals and medical care to school 
 children ; and free technical, secondary, and University 
 education to every child able to [)rofit by them. " Steps must 
 be taken to break down the artilicial division between ele- 
 mentary and other forms of education." Sj^stematic instruc- 
 tion in the rights and duties of citizenship to be given in all 
 schools. 
 
 13. Council to be enlarged to 200, and women to be 
 eligible. 
 
 This programme is the lineal successor of the previous 
 ones ; it is cast in the same mould, and contains the same items. 
 If it goes a little further in some directions, it is less advanced 
 in others. It does not propose to confiscate the revenues of the 
 City Companies or take over the charities or the Koyal parks, 
 nor does it otter to supervise the Home OflBce. The extensions it 
 proposes are quite logical ; but there is one remarkal)le omis- 
 sion, which deserves particular attention. No mention is made 
 of tlie gas supply ; it is quietly dropped out of the progi-anune. 
 Why ? Simply because the workmen employed by the Soutli 
 Metropolitan Gas Company are siiareholders in the concern, and 
 the proposal to deprive them of their property' would be resented. 
 Only those things which belong to someljody else are to l)e 
 municipalized for the benefit of " Lal)our." This is not honest 
 conviction, but a policj^ of expediency guided bj- self-interesf. 
 And a similar revelation has been ])roduced among Progressives 
 by this same progrannne. Mtuiicipal trading in coal and milk 
 does not meet with their api)roval ; it seems that some of (Ikmii 
 have private interests in those commodities. They do ii<i* 
 endorse, the manifesto of the lMdei)encU'ut Labour party, and 
 they insist on the distinction Itetween IM'ogressives and Socialists. 
 But that looks iniconunouly like a death-bed repentance. The 
 Progressive policy has for 18 years been a Socialist policy, and
 
 •l-i 
 
 the Progressive party has loyally adhered to it. It has not been 
 able to realize many of the items, but it has directed its whole 
 administration towards realizing them. For this it has manipu- 
 lated the committees on the Council, because the policy, being 
 based on a jwiovi axioms without regard to results, would not 
 bear close examination and criticism by those who do not blindly 
 accept it. For this it has be«n necessary to cajole the electors 
 by including among the resiilts all kinds of services rendered by 
 some one else and benefits which the party has not conferi-ed. 
 For this it has neglected plain duties, which do not subserve the 
 policy, and has piled up debts which delay or jjrevent the execu- 
 tion of urgent work and will not apparently bear the test of a 
 plain financial statement. 
 
 The Progressive programmes, it is to be noted, ignore the 
 duties actually entrusted to the Council ; they do not promise or 
 urge the efficient and economical administration of public affairs, 
 which should be its first care, but are wholly devoted to hypothe- 
 tical schemes which lie within the competence of Parliament 
 alone. And those are the lines on which the biisiness of the 
 Coimeil has been conducted by the party in power.
 
 February 6, 1907, 
 
 IV. 
 
 Tlio simplest way to oxainiiK' the actual work doiio 1).v the 
 County Council is to assume the character of a stranger — say 
 Ironi some foi-eig-u country — visiting the English metropolis to 
 investigate its administration with an appreciative hut critical 
 eye. After a good look round, not at *' the sights," but at the 
 streets, the dwellings, and the people, in order to get a general 
 idea, the first question he would ask is — ^Vliat is your death-rate ? 
 For the most exact, and at the same time the most general, 
 measure of well-heing is furnished by vital statistics. Thereui^on 
 he will have handed to him a report l)y the medical officer to the 
 County Council containing f\ill statistical and other information 
 relating to public health, conq)iled with gi-eat care and know- 
 ledge. And here the remark may l)e interjected that the Ccnuicil 
 is to be complimented on its statistical work in general ; the 
 new volume of Loudon statistics is a very valuable compilation ; 
 but these things have, of course, nothing to do with parties or 
 politics ; they are the work of executive officers. Oiir stranger 
 would note with appreciation the well-arranged mass of informa- 
 tion placed at his disposal and would proceed to digest it. He 
 would turn at once to the general death-rate and find that it was 
 much lower than the unfavourable appearance of large ai-eas of 
 the city had led him to expect. He would observe that it has 
 fallen from 24*4 per 1,000 in 1861-70 to 16" 1 per 1,000 in 1901-05, 
 that it is lower than the death-rates of most capital cities and 
 also the lowest death-rate in any of the 14 largest towns in 
 England with three exceptions, one of which, he would note, to 
 liis surprise, is West Ham, which he had learnt from the news- 
 l)apers to regard as the particular home of general misery, priva- 
 tion, and destitution. He would not exclaim, " London is the 
 liealtliiest city in the world," because he would be under no 
 obligation to say what is not true ; but he would certainly con- 
 elude tiiat in most matters atTecting public health London must 
 have been successfully administered for a good many yeais. 
 Upon inquiring into the organization bj' which these results have 
 been obtained, he would learn that for administrative purposes 
 London is divided into districts, each with its own sanitary 
 authority, which is responsible for general sanitation — drains, 
 scavenging, removal of refuse, niiisances, insanitary house con- 
 ditions, notification of infectious disease, disinfection, &c. — and 
 has its own executive stalf of medical officers and sanitary 
 inspectors to perfomu tliese duties, while the part of the County 
 Council, as the central authority, is confined to sujiervision, with 
 power to take action in case of default by the local authority.
 
 24 
 
 He would then probably turn liis attention to the s])eeial 
 subject of infectious disease and, perceiving that the death-i'ate 
 from the principal epidemic diseases had been satisfactorily 
 reduced from 5*23 in 1801-70 to 2*0 in 1901-05, would wish to know 
 how isolation is carried out in such a vast jiopulation, which must 
 liave much endemic disease always present and be constantly 
 liable to epidemic outbreaks. The facts with regard to this 
 important department of public health are that the notification of 
 cases and disinfection of premises, bedding, &c., after removal, 
 are carried out by the sanitary staffs of the local councils, and 
 the removal and isolation of patients by the Metropolitan 
 Asylums Board, a distinct central body, over which the County 
 Coinicil has no jurisdiction at all. It was created in 1867, and 
 opened its first fever hospital in 1870, since when its work has 
 continually grown. In 1904 it maintained 1 1 hospitals with an 
 aggregate of over 5,000 beds, to which 19,000 patients w^ere 
 admitted in the course of the year. The principal diseases dealt 
 with are scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhoid fever, and smallpox ; 
 and the great diminution in the zymotic death-rate, particularly 
 that of scarlet fever, must be attributed in a large measure to its 
 operations. The Board is hy far the largest agency for the 
 isolation and treatment of infectio\is disease in the world, and a 
 visit to its ambulance stations and hospitals could not fail to 
 excite the admiration of our intelligent stranger, who would 
 certainl}' pronounce them second to none and worthy of 
 Loudon. The only criticism he would be likely to make is that 
 some of the hospitals are needlessh" palatial and costly. 
 
 The next point likelj- to engage his attention is the water 
 supply. He would learn the following facts from the statistics — 
 that the mortality from those intestinal disorders which are com- 
 monly called water-borne has markedly diminished in recent 
 years ; that the death-rate from typhoid fever, in particular, has 
 fallen from 24 per 100,000 in 1871-80 to 8-4 in 1901-5, and in the 
 last year was only 5, as against 10 in Liverpool, 9 in Manchester, 
 and 7 in Birmingham and Glasgow ; tliat in general London com- 
 ))ares favourably with most gi'eat towns in respect of this class of 
 disease, and that for many years no outbreak has been traced to 
 the water. These facts ]irove that the quality of the London 
 water cannot be bad, and they establish a prima facie prol)abiiity 
 that it is exce])tionally good. But the well-informed foreigner 
 would reflect that a dangerous water supply may be used with 
 impunity for yeai's and then suddenly be the cause of a great 
 catastrophe, and ho would want to know about the sources and 
 till' i)recautions taicen to ensure safet.y. He would leai-n tliat the 
 bulk of the water is taken from the Thames, which is liable to 
 considerable ])ollnt ion, but that it is subjected io sand lilti-ation 
 and constantly examined not only on behalf of those res])onsible 
 for it, l)ut by (iovernmeut experts ap])ointed for tlu^ ])nriiose. 
 He would further learn that the risk of pollution is being steadily
 
 diniinishod by purilying tlie rivei- and impi-ctviii*"- the ti-eatment 
 of the water Ity means of suhsidenoe reseivoii-s and filtration, and 
 tliat tlie wliole question of tlie London water supi^iy has l)eeu in 
 recent years the subject of repeated public inquiries by the most 
 eminent scientific authorities, who have always reported favour- 
 ably upon it, wliile making suggestions for its improvement, 
 which have been adopted. When, a few years ago, the supply 
 was transferred from private companies to a public authority 
 and it became necessary to A-alue the undertakings, the excellent 
 condition of the existing plant was officially acknowledged and 
 full value allowed. 
 
 Putting together the foregoing facts, which cannot be gain- 
 said, the inquirer could not fail to come to the conclusion that 
 London is well served by the several agencies mentioned. This 
 system works very fairly, he would say ; after all, these English 
 are still a practical people. Biit there remains one other very 
 important feature of sanitary administration, which is entrusted 
 to the County Council. Main drainage and the disposal of 
 sewage are not exciting topics, but they are of vast importance 
 to the health of the community, and they constitute the first 
 duty of the Council as an administrative body. There is no 
 better test of its work than the manner in which it has perfomied 
 this great task, and, dull as the subject is, those who wish to 
 understand the meaning of Progressive politics in municipal work 
 must pay attention to it. 
 
 The main drainage of London was constructed by the Metro- 
 politan Board of Works at a cost of Sf millions, and was practi- 
 cally completed more than 40 years ago. It was a huge under- 
 taking, the accomplishment of which placed England in the fore- 
 front of practical sanitation. It effectually estal)lished the 
 water-carriage system of conveying sewage as the Ijest and most 
 suited to modern urban conditions, and all the world has gradu- 
 ally been following the famous example. But drains and sewers 
 only carry sewage away, they do not dispose of it ; in fact, main 
 drainage inci'eases the difficulty of dispersing the nuisance, by 
 collecting vast quantities in one spot. The case of London soon 
 proved that. The stuff was all run into the Thames in a con- 
 centrated form and produced an intolerable state of things near 
 the points of discharge. The Board of Works was constrained to 
 devise a i)lan for reducing the nuisance, and under expert advice 
 it adopted a scheme for treating the crude sewage chemically, 
 precipitating the solid matter and carrying it out to sea, so as to 
 remove the worst impurities from the river. This scheme Iiad 
 Ijeen partly carried out when the Comity Coiuicil came into 
 possession and inherited from the Board of Works the main 
 drainage system, with the partly constructed plant for treating 
 the sewage. With regard to the latter, the Council completed 
 and carried on the scheme very much upon the original lines, 
 under the advice of the expert who had devised it, and who
 
 L>6 
 
 passed into the service of tlie Council on the abolition of tlW 
 Board of AVorks, It has much improved the state of the river, bnt 
 is not an ideal method of sewage disposal. In spite of some bac- 
 terial treatment at one of the outfalls, much of the " purified " 
 effluent which nuis into the river after removal of the sludge is 
 anything but innocuous. It contains a great deal of sewage matter 
 in suspension and solution, with all the sewage smell, so that at 
 times the stench from the river at certain points is still excessively 
 bad. The process of barging the sludge away to sea is costly- 
 Visitors versed in these matters are not favourably impressed by 
 the arrangement, and our inquiring foreigner would have to 
 summon all his politeness to conceal the disappointment caused 
 by such a makeshift method in the mother of drains, as London 
 may be called. Bxit the difficulties in the way of carrying out a 
 more scientific and satisfactory method are very great ; and the 
 Council cannot be seriously blamed for adhering to the existing 
 one. But neither can it be congratulated. The matter is not one 
 to boast about. In any case, whatever credit is due belongs of 
 right chiefly to the old Board of Works, which put the scheme in 
 hand. 
 
 With regard to main drainage the case is much less favour- 
 able. When the Council took over this duty the system had 
 alreadj- been laid some 14 years, during which a great develop- 
 ment of building and increase of population had taken place, and 
 the need of additional sewers and works was being felt. The 
 ■ Council recognized the fact during its first year, and referred the 
 subject to the Main Drainage Committee on the ground of public 
 health. That winter there were many complaints of flooding in 
 low-lying districts from the inadequacy of the sewers, and fears 
 were expressed of danger to health in addition to inconvenience 
 and damage. The Council had been verj' unlucky in losing three 
 chief engineers in succession by resignation and death during its 
 first year ; but at the beginning of 1890 the Main Drainage Com- 
 mittee instructed tlie Council's chief engineer, in consultation 
 with Sir Benjamin Baker, to report upon the question, and urged 
 up<m tliem " the desirability of the utmost promptitude in making 
 their report." In short, tlie matter was treated as urgent. In 
 his annual address the Chairman (Lord Kosebery) referred to it 
 as " the greatest problem of all." 
 
 Our main drainage works wore planned for London at a 
 time when the population of London was 2,000,000 less than it 
 is at the present moment ; that ])opulation is daily increasing, 
 and furtliernioi-e we have ])laces like Krith api)yling (o be 
 included in our main drainage system ; we have, therefore, a 
 prohloin b(>f(>re us wliicli I do not exaggerate in descrihing as 
 by far tlie greatest before the Council at (lie jiresent 
 time.
 
 The engineers i-epoi'teil eurly in LSDl, and saut : — 
 
 We have f'onnd on investigation tliat tlie most frequent 
 eanse of jniblic eonipUiint is tine to the insuflicient size, of the 
 main outfall sewers, wliich has led to floodings of tlie low 
 districts, and to the frequent discliarge of much crude, un- 
 diluted sewage into the Thames in the heart of the metropolis. 
 To remedy these immediate pressing evils we have proposed the 
 construction of new intercepting sewers on both sides of tlie 
 river, of sufhcient size to provide for the sewage of a future 
 population of seven millions and also for a reasonable amount of 
 rainfall, at a cost of about 2} millions. We are of opinion that 
 detailed plans should be pre])ared of these works, and that no 
 time should l)e lost in commencing siich portions of them as are 
 more immediately required. 
 
 The Council accepted the recommendation that plans should 
 be prepared, but did not proceed to the execution of this ad- 
 mittedly urgent work. Nor has it been executed to this day, 
 after the lapse of IG yeai's. The story is one of recurring com- 
 plaints from local sanitary authorities and the public, of urgent 
 representations by the Council's engineer, of reports by the Main 
 Drainage Committee, and of postponement by the Council. A 
 little tinkering was done, and that was all for many years. 
 Certain Progressive Councillors seem to have entertained an un- 
 acconntable objection to carrying out the work. Nearly six 
 years after the engineers had been instructed to use " the utmost 
 promptitiule " and had reported on the " immediate pressing 
 evils," these gentlemen came forward and moved a resolution 
 that the enlargement of the sewerage system,reconnnended by the 
 engineers and accepted by the Council, was " not iu)w neces- 
 sary " ; and they got their resolution passed in the teeth of the 
 engineer's statement that " he was more strongly imjiressed than 
 ever with the necessity of immediately pi'oceeding with these 
 works." Some trilling work had been done to the amount of 
 £'1(55,000, and that was considered sufficient for " by far the 
 greatest problem before the Council." Four more years elapsed, 
 and again the same responsible officer endeavoured to do his duty 
 by urging tlie construction of sewage works at an estimated cost 
 of nearly three millions. His advice was endorsed by the Main 
 Drainage Committee, which reported : — 
 
 For a long time past serious complaints have been made 
 of the insufficiency of the main sewers in the various parts of 
 London, and our attention has been frequently directed to tlie 
 dangers arising to public health from the periodical Hooding of 
 dwelling-houses and other buildings with storm waters and 
 sewage. The duty of providing means for (he drainage of tlie 
 metropolis is undoubtedly one of the priiiciiial duties committed
 
 l>8 
 
 to the charge of the Council, and the mauner in which the 
 Coiuieil Mflls its obligation in seeing that this work is effectu- 
 ally done is, and must be, a matter of the utmost concern to 
 the public. 
 
 It will hardly be believed that the same Progressive members 
 once more endeavoured to obstruct this work, already 11 years 
 overdue, and had the impudence to move that it was " not now 
 necessary." However, pressure had been put on the Coimcil by 
 the local sanitary authorities in every part of London ; and those 
 on the north side of the river had held a conference, which — 
 
 recorded its surprise that, notwithstanding the strong expres- 
 sion of opinion by the Main Drainage Committee of the L.C.C. 
 and its responsible officers and the repeated representations of 
 vestries and district boards to the effect that the existing 
 sewer accommodation was entirely inadequate to carry out the 
 work required of it, no attempt shoidd have been made to abate 
 the intolerable nuisance complained of. 
 
 The Council was in this way brought to its bearings by the 
 other authorities. The obstructionists failed to carry their 
 point, and works to the extent of £1,250,000 were authorized. 
 Tliat was in 1899, but some years elapsed before any considerable 
 instalment was executed. Down to the end of the financial year 
 1904 little more than one-fourth of the amount had been ex- 
 pended ; in 1904-5 the amount spent on main drainage extension 
 was £368.000, and in 1905-6 it was £'461,000. But the worst of 
 the l(mg delay is that requirements have been accimiulating all 
 these years, and so much more remains to be done that the 
 Council dares not face the expenditure. The total cost of the 
 required drainage and flood relief works is estimated to be 
 £4,795,000, which leaves over 3V millions still to be spent But 
 tlie Council is not in a financial position to undertake this. AVhy ? 
 For the reasons given by the Finance Committee in 1905 : — 
 
 Tlie Council is already deiinitely committed to excep- 
 tional capital expenditure in these years, including the large 
 outlay that will be necessary for the electrification of the 
 northern tramways, and we feel that it would be most desirable, 
 in the best financial interests of the Council, that in these 
 years large expenditure under other heads should not, if 
 jKissible, be incurred. We therefore view with some concern 
 the |)ossibility of the requirements for main drainage being 
 increased to I lie extent indicated above. It has been repre- 
 H<'n(<>d to us that the works already completed, or now in 
 |)rogress, will be useless until further outlay is incurred for 
 their completion, but we feel that is equally true of any work 
 of such magnitude, and that, with every desire to see the work
 
 29 
 
 completod as oarly as possil)lo, the Council cannot afford to 
 disregard the financial considerations involved. 
 
 Of course it cannot ; tlie committee is quite right. So we 
 reach this conclnsion ; the first duty of the Council, declared 
 urgent in its first year, still unperformed after 17 years ; the 
 expenditure already incurred useless until the work is completed, 
 and com])lotion indefinitely ))ostponed because of the Council's 
 financial coniniKnuMits in other directions. It is not a creditalde 
 reconl for London ; it is a very discreditable one. What would 
 County Councillors think, if they went to Berlin, for instance, and 
 found such a tale of neglect ? What judgment would they pass 
 upon it ? What judgment is passed when ever a similar story 
 comes to light, as at Lincoln, for instance, two years ago ? That 
 is the judgment that any stranger would pass upon them ; and 
 we owe it entirely to the Progressive policy. Main drainage is 
 a dull and repellent thing ; there is no glamour about it, nothing 
 of the guardian angel ; it makes no show, it is not " ideal " ; it 
 is only real and vitally important. So we have bands in the 
 parks, " steam yachts," as Sir J. W. Benn has happily called 
 them, on the river, empty trams on the Embankment, and sewage 
 in the basement. The Councillor who took the lead in opposing 
 the main drainage works at the same time distinguished himself 
 by taking charge of his neighbour's morals. Purity in the music- 
 hall and sewage in the home ! It is a burlesque of local govern- 
 ment. Does the reader know what sewage in the house, including 
 the bakehouse, means ? It would be easy to write a sickening 
 description of it. About 15 years ago I remember having to 
 describe this very thing, not in London, but in Grimsby ; and a 
 day or two afterwards I saw the placards of a Progressive papei* 
 all over London annoiuicing " Shocking Disclosures at Grimsby," 
 meaning my description, which was quoted with appropriate 
 comments. It made me smile as I thought of lialf-a-dozen 
 districts in London, each twice or three times as large as 
 Grimsby, where the same thing occurs. 
 
 If the public health of London is good, very little thanks are 
 due to the County Council ; and the limits of patience are reached 
 when this body, which has so scandalously neglected the one great 
 pul)lic healtii duty entrusted to it, and only took up the work 
 eventually when driven to do so by the despised vestries, claims 
 all the credit and demands that the functions of the other 
 bodies, which have served London well, should be handed over 
 to its mismanagement. To Progressive politicians the proof of 
 the pudding is not in tlie eating, but in tlie nationality or the 
 name of the cook.
 
 February 13, 1907. 
 V. 
 
 The fxmetiou of local administration next in importance to 
 those concerned with public health in general is the treatment of 
 particular spots technicallj' known as insanitary areas and more 
 familiarly as " shims." Thej' are streets or courts consisting of 
 houses which are unfit to live in, according to prevailing notions 
 of health, on accoiuit of dilapidation, damp, and dirt. In regard 
 to this matter, the appearance of a large part of London makes 
 an extremely imf'avoxirable impression upon the Continental 
 visitor, who is not accustomed to the sight of so much squalor ; 
 and he is inclined to think that extraordinary indifference and 
 neglect ijrevail. But this impression is superficial ; it is caused 
 by the endless succ&ssion of streets consisting of mean little 
 houses, by tlie universal grime and dirt, and the fretpient sight 
 of broken windows, door-handles, and the like. Much of this 
 does not signify inditterence and neglect on the part of indi- 
 viduals ; but if the visitor looks below the surface he will find 
 that the forbidding exterior generally conceals more attention on 
 the part of public autliorities in regard to essential matters than 
 he supposed, and probably more than he is accustomed to meet 
 with behind the eomparativel.y pleasing exterior of the streets in 
 his native land. A mean and dirty little house may be less 
 really insanitary than a great building with an imposing appear- 
 ance, and the very multitude of mean little houses, which is so 
 depressing to the eye in London, implies a spreading of the 
 population over the groxmd which has no little hygienic value in 
 itself. Things are not so bad as tliey look. Nevertheless, housing 
 is, for various reasons, a ver^' great and diflicult problem in 
 London, Thirty years ago it was great and urgent enough to 
 liave dismayed the stoutest heart. Many parts of the City were 
 strewTi with areas as bad as they could possibly be ; whole 
 streets and courts of houses, rotten with age and neglect, filthy 
 bej'ond description, densely crowded with people sunk in the 
 depths of ])overty, degradation, and crime. I used to explore 
 tliem in the days of my youth and remember them well. The 
 changes since efiected are very remarkable. The ])laces I 
 remember are not all gone, but the worst of them are, and the 
 localities arc unrecognizable. Much had already been done 
 before Mr. Booth began his investigations 20 years ago, and much 
 has been done since. Criticism is easy and has not been lacking, 
 but any one who knows the extent of the changes eftected and 
 the ditlieulty of elTecting them is not nuu-h inclined t<) criticize ; 
 and I confess I am not. The agencies which have contributed to 
 the work have 1)(>(mi ninnerous and some have been more success- 
 ful than oliii'rs. In recent veai-s llu' Count v Council has from i(s
 
 ni 
 
 position necessarily been the most prominent, and it lias been 
 active. It lias done its duty by insanitary housing far better 
 than by main drainage, and if it were content to let the matter 
 rest as non-political every one else would gladly do so ; but since 
 all the credit is claimed, as usual, for the Progressive policy, it 
 becomes necessary to examine the record. 
 
 Legislation dealing with housing goes l)ack as far as 1851 
 (Lord Shaftesbury's Act), but little was done before 1875 ; since 
 then the work has been activelj' and continuously carried on. It 
 is not necessarj^ to trouble the reader with details of the various 
 Acts which have contributed to it, but one fact must be men- 
 tioned because it is constantly forgotten. All the principal Acts 
 iHuler which improvements in housing have been effected were 
 l)assed under the Conservative Governments of Lord Beaconsfield 
 and Lord Salisbury. During the second Ministry of the latter 
 the important consolidating Act of 1890, which is still the 
 principal Act, was passed, and the most important amendments 
 made since were passed in Lord Salisbury's third Ministry (1900) 
 and Mr. Balfour's Ministry (1903). Legal power is the indis- 
 pensable lever of action, and in regard to housing im])rovement 
 we owe practically none of it to Progressive politics. 
 
 Under the powers thus conferred by those who are supposed 
 to be the enemies of progress, the metropolitan authorities liave 
 since 1875 dealt with 45 insanitary areas covering 105 acres in 
 the centre, south, east, and north of London. For a small 
 portion of this — namely, ten areas covering eight acres^a 
 number of borough councils are responsible, but the duty of 
 dealing with larger areas is placed b}- the law iipon the central 
 authority, formerlj' the Board of Works, now the County Council. 
 The clearance of insanitary areas has practically been done by 
 these two. Between 1876 and 1889 the Board of Works carried 
 out 17 schemes and initiated six others, one of which was 
 dropped ; between 1889 and the present time the County Coiuicil 
 has carried out ten schemes, including live inherited from the 
 Board of Works, and initiated eight others. The total area of 
 the improvements initiated by the two authorities respectively 
 is : — Board of Works, 57*24 acres ; County Coiuicil, 40'00 acres. 
 Of course, as improvements of this kind proceed, the scope of 
 operations diminishes and one may naturally expect a contraction 
 of results ; but the fact remains that the Board of Works actually 
 initiated improvements covering a considerably larger area than 
 the County Council has done in a considerably longer period. If 
 both are credited with the schemes completed and begun, or with 
 those completed only, the advantage still lies with the older 
 body. TiiiMiing to the population of these areas, we tiiul a still 
 greater dillerence in the same direction. The working-class popu- 
 lation occupying the whole area l)et<)re cleai'ance was 45,437 ; the 
 munber affected by the Board of Works completed schemes was
 
 32 
 
 24,100, by the County Council completed schemes 12,749, by all 
 the Board of Works schemes, comijleted and initiated, 29,004, 
 and hy all the County Council schemes 21,337. If the schemes 
 initiated wholly hy the Council are taken the number is only 
 10,433, against 29,004. 
 
 These facts, taken from the Council's own official statistics. 
 effectually dispose of the claim, advanced by the Progressive 
 party, to the whole credit for London improvements. The more 
 that claim is examined by any one who cares nothing about 
 parties or theories, but simply looks at the facts, the more pre- 
 posteroTis does it become. One can only supj^ose that those who 
 advance it are themselves ignorant of the facts or rely upon the 
 ignorance of their hearers. Mr. Sydney Buxton, for instance, 
 speaking at Poplar on February 5, compared the improved 
 London of to-day with " the London he remembered imder the 
 imrepresentative Board of Works," as if no improvements had 
 been effected until the advent of the Coimty Council ; whereas 
 the plain trutii is that not only in regard to insanitary areas, 
 but also in street improvements and the provision of parks and 
 open spaces, more was done under the Board than has since been 
 done iinder the Council. The reputation of the Board of Works 
 is nothing to me ; let us grant, for the sake of argument, that it 
 was as incompetent as Mr. Sydney Buxton and others jillege. 
 But, if so, what becomes of the reputation of the County Council, 
 which has done less for improvement with larger powers ? 
 
 The net cost to the ratepayers of clearance schemes up to 
 March, 1905, was £2,422,131, and the estimated cost of all 
 schemes undertaken up to the present time, including those of 
 the borough councils, is £2,606,080, of which £1,372,600 was 
 incurred by the Board of Works. 
 
 The clearance of insanitary areas, however, is only half the 
 battle, and not the most difficult half. There is the troublesome 
 question of rehousing the displaced population. The policy 
 of the Board of Works was to offer the land to private corjiora- 
 tions, philantlivoiiic or commercial, for the erection of working- 
 class dwellings, and this plan resulted in the provision of accom- 
 modation for a larger number than had been displaced. In the 
 schemes carried out by the Board the total working-class popula- 
 tion displaced was 24,100, and accommodation was provided 
 for 26,808. [These figures appear to be differently stated in 
 different official returns ; they are given in another return as 
 21,207 disj)laced and 27,066 rehoused.] The Coiincil, on the other 
 hand, ap))ears to have had two policies. At first it tried to 
 follow the example of its predecessor, but with very little 
 success ; ])urchasers could not be fo\ind for most of the sites. 
 The reasons fo)- tliis failure are not given ; it would be interest- 
 ing to know if a I'rogressive policy was at all responsible for it. 
 At any rate, the Council, 1 eing under a statutoiy obligation to 
 rehouse at least half the people displaced ly any improvement
 
 an 
 
 scheme, adopted the poliey of ereetinfi; its own l)iiildiiij;-s. Tlie 
 net I'esult of its ten completed schemes is 12,749 displaced and 
 accommodation for 8,142 provided. To put it another way, while 
 the Board of Works increased the numler of rooms from 10,445 to 
 14,455, the Council reduced (5,172 rooms to 4,900. 
 
 It is difticult to estimate the respective gain or loss to the 
 comminiity produced l)y tlu»se changes. When accommodation is 
 diminished the i)eople are less thick on the ground at that s])()t, 
 hut demand is increased in the neiglibourhood, and with it, 
 doubtless, rents and overcrowding. On the whole, the results 
 produced hy such bodies as the Peabody Trust are certainly 
 better than those of the County Council. The rents of dwellings 
 erected under the Board of Works polic.y are appreciably less 
 tlian the County Council's ; the former average 2s. 7d. per room 
 per week, being an increase of 4{d. ; the latter average 2s. 11 ',d., 
 Iieing an increase of 8 |d. Where does the benefit to the poor 
 come in here ? It is often said that, when insanitary ai*eas are 
 cleared and improved housing erected in place of that demolished, 
 the persons who occupy the new buildings are not those dis- 
 possessed, but of a superior class. That is true, and it is 
 pi'obably more true of the Council's dwellings than of others ; 
 but I do not hink there is much in the complaint. It seems to me 
 an inevitable process. During demolition the old inhabitants are 
 dispersed ; they go elsewhere, often miles away. For instance, 
 there are streets near Earl's-court, at Fulham, Parson 's-green, 
 and Hammersmith, where considerable numbers of the persons 
 (urned out by the Spitalfields improvements took refuge. They 
 go to the places which suits them best, and those are the 
 cheapest and worst ; for the areas selected for demolition are 
 those in the worst condition and occupied ^)y the lowest classes. 
 Their dispersal is a good thing for them and everybodj- ; they 
 are more distributed among superior neighbours, less able to 
 keep each other in countenance, and so are insensibly led to con- 
 form, more or less, to a higher standard. If they all returned to 
 their old quarters, they would soon make it nearly as bad as ever. 
 Wiien they do return, that happens ; but as a rule they do not. 
 The improved dwellings do not suit them so well as the places 
 tliey have found meanwhile, which are more like their old 
 quarters. On the other hand, the persons who do come to the 
 new dwellings are those naturallj- attracted by the locality and 
 the accommodation ; those, in short, most suited to it. But 
 when we speak of housing the poor we must remember that the 
 first of all considerations to them is the i"ent ; and therein the 
 Board of Works certainlj- did better than the Council, In 
 rehousing the poor after clearances, then, the Council has not 
 been conspicuoiisly successful. But it is also under obligations 
 to i-ehonse for disjilacements on account of street improvements 
 and other public works apart from insanitary areas. On that 
 score it has erected dwellings containing 2,405 tenements and 
 
 3
 
 34 
 
 5,985 rooms, but about these very little information is available. 
 Some of them form part of the Councirs housing schemes, which 
 must be distinguished from rehousing. The latter is a statutory 
 obligation when people are displaced, but the law also gives the 
 Council power to build working-class dwellings independently of 
 displacements. It was not iintil the end of 1898 that the Council 
 decided to put this power into force, although the jiroblem had 
 long been acute. At the same time it decided in future to pro- 
 vide accommodaton for all jiersons disiilaced by improvements, 
 and the two things have gone together. Down to March, 1905, 
 the number of rooms provided was 2,378 in seven localities ; and 
 other schemes were projected representing 32,705 additional 
 rooms. Most of these schemes are on sites at a distance from the 
 more congested central parts of London, and some are outside 
 tlie county altogether. The largest are at Tooting (Totterdown- 
 fields), Norbury, Wood-green (Wliite Hart-lane), and Hammer- 
 smith (Old Oak-common). They have proceeded very slowly. 
 The Tooting scheme, the first of its kind, was passed at the 
 beginning of 1900 ; it provided for the purchase of 381 acres on 
 which cottages were to be erected to house 8,432. According to 
 the latest statistics the accommodation already provided is only 
 for 2,124. The Norbury scheme was passed at the end of 1900 ; 
 the site is 31 acres and the accommodation contemplated is for 
 5,800 persons. In February, 1906, the first block was completed 
 with housing for 68 persons. The Wood-green scheme is by far 
 tlie largest of all ; the estate is 225! acres, and the eventual 
 accommodation is intended to be for 42,500 persons. At present, 
 after about five years, it only appears to have got as far as to 
 l^rovide for about 1,000. The Hammersmith scheme (50 acres) is 
 still less advanced. 
 
 So far. municipal housing has done very little towards 
 solving the pro))lem. The following table from " London 
 Statistics," showing the accommodation ])rovided by several 
 agencies in regard to both rehousing aiul housing, is 
 instructive :• — 
 
 Kkhousing. 
 
 Akoir-v. 
 
 Xii. of Ivooins 
 I'ruvidod. 
 
 London County Council ... ... ... ... 12,718 
 
 Local autho)'ities ... ... ... ... ... 1 ,(597 
 
 Ti'usts, i)ul)lic conipiinics, and ])rivate ( .,,. ..,. 
 
 persons ... ... ... ... ... 5 
 
 Railway and other comj)aiii<'s ... ... ... 8,201 
 
 Total 1 43,040
 
 35 
 
 Housing. 
 
 Agency. ^"p"^' ^^«T^ 
 
 Provided. 
 
 London County Comioil 2,378 
 
 Local autliorities ... 4,272 
 
 Trusts, piiblie e()iiii):iiii<vs, aiul pi-ivatc ] q. r.,.-, 
 
 pei'sons ... ) I ' '"^ 
 
 Total I 91,172 
 
 In rehonsinf?, then, municipal agencies liaA'e pi'ovided 
 14,41.") I'ooms, private enterprise 28,G25 ; in housing their 
 respective figures are fi.G.jO and 84, .522. The totals are — 
 ininiicipal agencies, 21,00.) ; private enterprise, 113,147. 
 Private enterprise here only covers certain large concerns, 
 some of which are philantiiropic (Guinness Trust and Peabody 
 Finul) and some commercial ; tlie largest of the latter class are 
 the Avtizans', Labourers', and General Dwellings Company 
 (Limited) and tiie Improved Industrial Dwellings C()in|)any 
 (Limited). Individual etVorfs, represented by less than 
 200 rooms, are not included. So far as tlie problem concerns the 
 poor ill ))articular— and the i)oor are tiie cnix of it — miiiiici))al 
 effort is still less successful ; is, indeed, a total failure. The 
 rents are far too high, in some cases too high for skilled men in 
 good work, and hopelessly out of the reach of married labourers. 
 The aA'erage rent of all tlie County Council's buildings is 2s. lid. 
 per room ; but even that, enough as it is, is deceptive. In 
 nearly half their dwellings the average is over 3s. ; in five of 
 them it is 3s. fid. or above, and in one it is over 4s. For some of 
 the single-roomed tenements the rent is 4s. 6d., 5s., and even Gs., 
 and for some of the double-roomed tenements 7s., 8s., and 9s. 
 These are the more centrally-situated dwellings ; on the Millbank 
 estate, which is one of the principal housing schemes in London, 
 but not central, the rent of tenements is — one room, 4s. Gd. and 
 5s. ; two rooms, 6s. to 8s. Gd. ; three rooms, 8s. to 10s. Qd. ; four 
 rooms, 12s. to 13s. Let us compare this with the latest dwellings 
 erected by the municipality in Liverpool, the only town in 
 England that has done much in tiie way of housing besides 
 London — one room, 2s. and 2s. Gd. ; two rooms, 2s. 9d. to 
 3s. Gd. ; three rooms, 4s. to 4s. Gd. ; foiir rooms, 4s. Gd. to 
 5s. 3d. The average rent per room is Is. Gd., against 2s. lid. in 
 London, or Just about one-half. And these are not on the 
 outskirts of the town, but fairly central, besides being of 
 excellent quality. Wiien all allowance for difference of local 
 prices is made, the Coimty Council rents are clearly higher 
 than they need be or ought to be. The average weekly rent 
 per room for other lunv working-class dwellings in and
 
 about London is 2s. 4cl. ; that is to say, the County 
 Council rents are 25 per cent. hif>her than the eonmiercial rents. 
 And it must be remembered that these dwellinj^s are built under 
 stringent regulations and trade union wages are paid by the 
 builders. The Council has certainly been extravagant, and for 
 that the Progressive policy is responsible. Lord Carrington has 
 just told us that when the Council decided to begin housing in 
 1898 he endeavoured to get the Housing Committee composed 
 entirely of Progressives, but was overruled ; there was " a fair 
 sprinkling of Moderates, biit they were not numerous enough to 
 do them any harm " ; otherwise, to interfere with their policy. 
 Tliat is a very intei'esting admission. 
 
 The result of the high rents is that the tenements are 
 impossible to the poor, and ai)parently too dear even for superior 
 working-class familip^s. Although the housing schemes have 
 made such slow pi-ogress, there has been in some of them a 
 difficulty in letting the few cottages erected ; and empty hoixses 
 have added to the current cost. Many of the schemes are worked 
 at a loss, and the profit on the others did not suffice to make good 
 the deficiency in the financial year ended March, 1905, when 
 the net deficiency on working was £'1,097 (London Statistics). 
 In the following year the report of the Housing Committee 
 showed a surplus of £2,661 on all dwellings in occupation, 
 making, with interest on cash balances, a total surplus of £3,346. 
 Let us hojie that tilings are improving. Nevertheless, the same 
 i-eport states that a net contril)ution of £39,084 had been made 
 fi'om the rates up to that date. It is, however, extremely 
 doubtful, to say the least, if these accounts represent the true 
 financial ijosition. It appears that the Housing Committee has 
 in recent years adopted the practice of writing down the value of 
 sites to )(('/ and charging it to some other ac<^ount, in order to 
 avoid showing a deficiency ; and that even that peeiiliar financial 
 transaction has not sufficed to meet the case. The Finance Com- 
 mittee in its report of July last drew attention to tliis and to the 
 remarks of tlu» auditor that — 
 
 In the year 1904-5 there were three cases in which the 
 Council charged as the value of the site sinus less than the 
 valuer's estimate. . . . He states that he has passed the 
 accounts as submitted to him, but tnists " that the Council 
 will give instructions for transfers representing full housing- 
 value to be made l)etween the ditferent accounts, as it would 
 apj)ear that the dwt^llings' capital account lias been consider- 
 ;il)ly iindercliai-ged." 
 
 Tlie Finance Committee's report then goes on to refei- to tlie 
 reliousing in connexion witli Potherliithe Tunnel in 1902. A sit»> 
 was secured for £12,000, .uhI the viiliicr ])laced its value for 
 housing purposes at t'1,000.
 
 The Housing of the Wt)rking Classes Committee, liowevei-, 
 estimated that even if the site were to be taken as of no value, 
 they could not build dwellings upon it without showing a 
 deficieney, and they asked that the dwellings scheme should he 
 subsidized by a payment out of the Rotiierhitlie Tunnel cai)ital 
 account of the amount of tiiis estimated deticiency - viz., 
 £•397. . . . The Council decided on July 29, 190l>, that the 
 value of tlie laud should be taken at nil and tluit capital suh- 
 sidy should be made of £'M)7. 
 
 Tiu; Housing Committee now point out that in spite of the 
 fact that these dwellings ai-o built in the most economical 
 mannei* possible, they leave, even with the subsidy in question, 
 an anmial loss to the Council. 
 
 The same repoi-t refers to another case, in which the value of 
 the land was taken at j(/7, and in addition the dwellings' account 
 was credited with £0,535, which was the sum estimated l)y tiu^ 
 Housing Committee to be required " to preserve equililu-ium " ; 
 in this case the vahie of the site for housing purposes was put by 
 the valuer at £3,050, so that nearly £10,000 was knocked oil' tlie 
 housing account and put upon the rates. 
 
 " To preserve equilibriiun " is a good phi*ase ; but in view of 
 these transactions the less said about profits on housing the 
 l)etter. It is impossible to accept the accounts with confidence. 
 In regard to the Bourne rehousing scheme, the report of the 
 Koyal Commission on London Traffic ]3oints out that in con- 
 sequence of the writing down policy " there is a loss of very 
 nearly £60 per head of the persons housed, and the whole of this 
 loss falls on the rates." That estimate was based on the assump- 
 tion that 2,640 persons were housed, but the actual number given 
 in London Statistics is 1,005, so that the loss is over £150 per 
 head. Yet, after this, the average rent is 3s. S^d. per room. Of 
 all the agencies which have attempted housing, the Comity 
 Council has most conspicuously failed. The contrast between its 
 performance and its i^romises is positively ludicrous. 
 
 .'5H,'JG8,1
 
 February 21, 1907. 
 VI. 
 
 Street improvemeuts are a matter of even more general 
 importance than insanitary' areas and lionsing, with which they 
 are logically and actually connected. Many of the clearance, 
 schemes discussed in the last article have heen associated witli 
 t\\e formation of new streets, and even when this has not been 
 done old streets have generally heen widened. But street 
 improvement is also a subject bj' itself, requiring separate treat- 
 ment. Its object is different ; it is concerned primarily with 
 locomotion, and, secondarily, with beantification, thoxigli it also 
 has a bearing on public health. It has been universally recognized 
 for half a century, at least, as a crying need in London, the 
 inliabitants of which daily attempt to put more traffic througli 
 narrower streets than in any other western city in existence. 
 Tlie process is slow ; but it has gone on ; a great deal of money 
 has been spent on it and substantial results have been obtained. 
 Biit here, again, though one feels inclined to apologize for 
 repeating the same tale, the facts are so constantly misrepre- 
 sented in order to bolster up the Progressive platform that it is 
 necessary to point out once more that we do not owe the greater 
 part of the improvements to the Coiuity Council at all, and 
 that in what we do owe to it the Progressive policy has been 
 more hindrance tlian help. Apart from the Embankment, which 
 is by far the greatest of all, IG large improvements were carried 
 out by the Board of Works, including Sliaftesbury-aA-enue, with 
 the enlargement of Piccadilly-circus, Cliaring-cross-road, Nortli- 
 umberland-avenue. Queen Victoi-ia-street, Southwark-street, 
 Clerkenwell-road, and Commercial- road ; and it be(xtieath(;d 
 the completion of Kosebery-avenue to the Coimty Comicil. The 
 work of the Board was distinguished by the niuuber of new 
 arterial thoroughfares which it drove through dense and squalid 
 regions. Tlie work of the Coimcil, on the other liand, has been 
 chieliy confined to widening existing tlioroiighfares. It is a 
 useful and iiecessary work, but when " imagination " is claimed 
 as the distinctive merit of the Council's proeedings, we are 
 entitled to ask where it comes in. TIkm-c is certainly more 
 imagination in i)]anniiig new streets lliaii in widening old ones, 
 which is a rule of tiuniib business. In trutli the I'eally distinc- 
 tive qiiality of Pi'ogressive administration is not imagination, 
 which does not guide or slKH)e its oporaiions, l)ut merely 
 fui'iiishes arguments in siijipoi't of tliem. 'Plic one notahle 
 exception to the Coinicil's coMii)aialive]y meagre contributions 
 to street improvement is the Jiol born-Strand scheme. It is a 
 line l)it of work, but over-pi-aised ; and the point in \\hich the 
 design fails is precisely want of imagination. The crescentic
 
 39 
 
 ending towards the Strand gives no vista. So long as these 
 new streets lie open with the groiuid nnljiiilt upon (a dead 
 bnrden to the rates) they look broad and spacious ; but when 
 the view is barred by the buildings, which must eventually 
 come, the disposition of the streets will be found to have a very 
 unfortunate effect. Tliey will look as if they led to nowhere, 
 and will not attract, for it is the vista that draws people on. 
 The uninviting back-water appearance cannot fail to exercise 
 an injurious inlluencc upon, the commercial value of the property, 
 aiul i)rol)ably this is one of the reasons wliy so much difliculty 
 is experienced in letting the ground, to the heavy loss of the 
 ratepaj-ers. 
 
 The Council might have done a good deal more than it has 
 and might have carried out some improvements at considerably 
 less cost, if it had not wasted several years in piirsuing certain 
 Progressive i^rinciples. The Improvements Committee kept 
 bringing up proposals and jiressing them as urgent, but the 
 Council kept i^utting them off until Parliament could be induced 
 to sanction the Progressive theory of " betterment," or the 
 taxation of groimd values, as is related in one of the Council's 
 juiblications (History of London Street Improvements, by P. J. 
 Edwards, clerk to the Improvements Committeee) : — 
 
 The Goiuicil accordingly resolved to jiostpone all new 
 loans for permanent improvements which could be postponed 
 witliout grave inconvenience " until Parliament should have 
 j)rovided that the liurden of all loans for such improvements 
 should fall u])on such persons as the law should hereinafter 
 direct, all jwivate contracts to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 The Improvements Committee, being of opinion that many of 
 the proposed improvements imder consideration were of 
 pressing necessity and were such as could not be i)ostponed 
 without grave inconvenience, continued to submit pro|)osals 
 to the Council for adoption, but all the scliemes, with one or 
 two exceptions, were referred back to tlie coumiittee. 
 
 Thus the interests of the public were sacrificed to theory. 
 The belief that vast sums can be obtained for the benefit of 
 the public bj^ taxing ground values is one of the numerous 
 economic fallacies that have an irresistible attraction for some 
 minds ; it lias been disproved again and again, a posteyiori and 
 a priori, by exi)erience and by reason, but is still tenaciously 
 held, or assumed for electioneering purposes. Parliament has 
 hitherto declined to fall into tlie snare, and tlie attitude of the 
 present Government towards it is highly ambiguous. If iinprove- 
 ments are to be postponed until this dream is realized, they 
 will have to wait a long time. There is uuicli more to be said 
 for " betterment." The principle is imassailable that, if the 
 value of property is increased by specific improvements carried
 
 40 
 
 out at the piihlic cost, the owners who benelit tliereby should 
 coutribiite towards it. Tlie " betterment " phm is to levy an 
 imijrovement charge on the enhanced value, wliicli is arrived 
 at by assessment. But there is another way of seciu-ing tlie 
 enhanced value for the public, and that is Ity the public's 
 becoming the owner of the property to be improved, or a 
 considerable part of it. This is called recoupment, and it was 
 advocated by the Moderate party on the Council, but opposed 
 by tlie Progi'essives. It is the more practical plan of the two, as 
 events have pi-oved. Its adoption was one of the results of the 
 election of 1895, which brought the Moderates back in sti-ength 
 and enabled them to exercise some influence in the direction of 
 a more practical administration of affairs. After that tlie 
 inactivity of the Council ceased, and large schemes which had 
 been delayed for years were put in hand. The change may be 
 seen in the budget for improvements. In the previous six years 
 the estimated cost of improvements sanctioned by the Council 
 was £620,000 ; in the following six years it was £4,330,000. In 
 Progressive reports the change is ascribed to the ajjproval 
 given by Parliament to the principle of betterment in 1895 ; but 
 the betterment sanctioned by Parliament was not that demanded 
 by the Council, and, as a matter of fact, it has been applied to 
 only a small extent. The most important imiJi'ovemeuts have 
 been carried out on the recoupment plan, which fomid a strong- 
 advocate in Mr. Shaw Lefevre, now Lord Eversley. Thougli 
 a Progressive, he was not a fanatic, and he not only recognized 
 the advantages of the plan advocated by the Moderates, but, 
 when he was chairman of the Improvements Committee, he got 
 it carried with their help, in the teeth of a determined opposition 
 from Progressives. He has himself given an account of it in 
 Tlie Times, and borne testimony to the value of recoupment, in 
 a letter published in October, 1905, in which he said : — 
 
 I may explain tliat the Westniiiistcr iiiiprovemeiit, like 
 tliat of the new Kiiigsway and Aldwych, and also the Ken- 
 sington High-street widening, was based on the actiuisitiou 
 of a vei'y wide area of recoui)ment, by which it was hoped to 
 recover a great part, if not the whole, of the cost of tlie 
 scheme — a new departure as an alternative to the aborti\e 
 ))rlnciple of " betterment," and to which I attributed the 
 liigliest importance in its bearing on future schemes of street 
 jinproveinents in London. 
 
 That this valuable and fruitful i)rinciple was opposed on 
 liarty grounds by the Progressives, and carried only witli 
 dilliculty, is clear from what follows : — 
 
 I must admit tliat I committed what was naturally con- 
 sidered by many of my friends of the Progressive party an
 
 41 
 
 uii[):u'd()iiablo offence, fVoiii a party point of view, in accept- 
 ing the support of the Moderate party and carrying it largely 
 by their aid. The result of the scheme as now apparent from 
 tlie bond fide offer of tlic syndicate has far exceeded my most 
 sanguine, hopes. 
 
 Here is an illustration — one out of many — of tlie way in which 
 party administration by Progressives runs counter to public 
 interests. Tlie business of the Council is to adopt whatever plan 
 gives the liest results ; yet a respected and inffuential I'rogres- 
 sive is held to have coumiitted " an Txnpardonable offence " in 
 advocating on those groiuids a plan which is not the party j)lan. 
 Tliere is no reason wliy both betterment and recoupment should 
 not be applied according to circumstance, but, because recoup- 
 ment is not in the Progressive bible — otherwise " tlie London 
 Programme "—it is to be opposed tooth and nail, altliougli it not 
 only produces better results, biit is actually more in accordance 
 witli the principle of public ownership. Can stupidity and blind 
 foUowing of the blind go further ? It appears that Progressive 
 stupidity can. The syndicate, whose offer Mr. Lefevre referred 
 to above as so advantageous, consisted of gentlemen of the most 
 unimpeachable standing and ability, and the offer was recom- 
 mended, though reluctantly, for acceptance bj' tlie Improvements 
 Committee ; but it met with strong opposition from Progressive 
 members, wlio made a determined attempt to secure its rejection on 
 l)urely theoretical grounds. Lord Welby, however, uttered one of 
 the grave warnings which have distinguished his conduct of the 
 Council's finance. He " implored the members to pause and 
 consider that they were the guardians of the public purse and 
 to realize the responsibilities that giiardianship entailed. He 
 hoped the Council would not adopt the qxxixotic proposal of Mi-. 
 Hiibbard and add to the already enormous commitments of the 
 Council." His soiuid advice was not without effect, and eventu- 
 ally the scheme was passed, though not until the debate had 
 been adjourned and several amendments rejected, including one 
 which would have fettereil the acceptance of the offer ; it was 
 moved by a Progressive member, who, " as an advocate of land 
 nationalization, could be no party to the acquisition of land by a 
 private body, which was moreover a dangerous precedent," and 
 it was only defeated by a narrow majority in a full Council. This 
 is interesting as showing how Socialist theories are allowed to 
 inffuencc the business of the Council. What has laud nationaliza- 
 tion to do with a plain business transaction on the part of an ad- 
 ministrative body ? 
 
 The reluctance to accept a good offer in one case was paralleled 
 by the curious readiness to accept a bad one in another, namely, 
 the " Paris in London " project for the Strand site. This ex- 
 traortliuary fiasco was due less to Progressive fancies than to 
 sheer lack of business capacity, but throughout the historv of
 
 42 
 
 the Council the two are found to go together. The ImproA-ements 
 Couiniittee accepted an offer from a " French syndicate " and 
 the Coxuicil ratified the agreement Avithont requiring any gua- 
 rantee, or even knowing who composed the syndicate. Sir M. 
 Beachcroft, the leader of tlie Moderate party, drew attention to 
 the extraordinarily unbusinesslike character of the proposal 
 and moved that it be referred back ; biit in vain. About three 
 months later the agreement had to be rescinded, as the syndicate 
 failed to pay a deposit. Siich was the hinniliating end of a 
 ])roject which liad blocked tlie way for other offers for 19 months. 
 Even if the syndicate had been able to carry the bargain 
 through, there was an obstacle in the form of a lease of i^art of 
 the premises still held hy a tenant, which had been overlooked 
 bj' some extraordinary blunder. The debate on that occasion is 
 interesting on account of the statement by a Progressive member 
 with regard to the (still) luilet land in the Holborn imjirove- 
 meut : — 
 
 I am told in the City by builders that it is absolutely im- 
 possible to do business with this Council, the moment they 
 approach them it is a matter of conditions. I know of a case in 
 which people are prepared to build a block of offices on one of 
 oxir vacant sites and they are met with impossible demands in 
 regard to the gromid-rent. They are asked for a groimd-rent 
 equal to a smn which I should not like to ymy for a lease of the 
 whole block of l)uildings. 
 
 Most of the ground still remains vacant and the interest on 
 the dead debt, which Lord Welby said, in October, 1905, was 
 £'120,000 a year, has to come out of the rates. In addition to 
 that, the City of Westminster authorities estimate that they 
 have lost up to date OA'er £'71,000 in rates on the vacant land. 
 No one can pretend tluit this Imsiness has been well managed, 
 ))ut it is nothing comjjared with the Innigling in the case of an 
 unim))ortiint inii)rovement at Fulham, in connexion with wliicli 
 £'(54,000 was i)aid for one-seventeenth of an acre. Land 
 nationalization at flie rate of £'1,088,000 an acre ! To convince 
 the reader tiiat tliere is no mistake, here is Lord Welby's state- 
 )nent : — 
 
 Tlie end (if llic w liolc ti-ausaction is that we pai^l £04,000 
 for l-17th of an aci-e. Tliat is all we have got out of it. Mr. 
 Hubbard (chairman of tlie linp)'ovements Committee), in answer 
 to objections, says, Yon wanted tlie land. Tliat is to say, that 
 lie jiisfilics wliatevei- amonnt of money might be asked for this 
 pirci' of l;iM(L H yoii liii|)p(>iied io want it, yon are to j)ay for 
 it. On liclialf n\ the l''iiiaiic(> Committee, we, at all events, 
 consider thai yon can liny (oo drai'. We thought it a great deal 
 too dear in lliis inslaiice. 1 vciiliirc [o think it is the most
 
 43 
 
 astouiulliij;' t raiisiu-lioii tli;i( cvtM- camt' bcloiH* llic Council. 
 (May L'i), 1 •.)()().) 
 
 IVrIiaj).s tJu' iiiosl asloiiiuliiij;', bill cssiMilially fliai-ac-U'ristic 
 ol' I'j'Of^ressive aclinini.stratioii, and quite in kee])ing with other 
 transactions. The Cliairniaii of tlie Iniprovenients Committee, 
 poor iJian, had to endure some liard knocks from other colleajjues 
 besides Lord "Welby in regard to this case and also tlie " Paris 
 in London " iiasco ; hnt he naturally replied in a jilaintive tone 
 — " What terrible otlence have we committed ?" The real 
 offence was that their blunders could not lie covei'ed uj) or 
 brazened out ; but otlier connnittees have ])layed the fool, to use 
 plain language, in much the same way and from the same 
 inherent defect — sheer business incapacity. Tliere is. for 
 instance, the Bridges Committee, wliose work in regard to new 
 britlges is analogous to that of the Imjjrovemeuts Committee in 
 regard to new streets, and shoidd therefore be mentioned here. 
 The story of the rebuilding of Yanxhall-bj-idge is a cha])ter of 
 blunders woi-thy to rank with those related aljove ; but to tell it 
 in detail would be tedious. The old bridge was condemned as 
 dangerous in 1892. An Act was obtained in 1895 authorizing the 
 construction of a new bridge. The order to beign work was 
 given in 1898, and the bridge .should have been finished in 
 March, 1901. It was actually opened for traffic, thoiigh not 
 completed, in Ma}% 1906, five years after the expected date, 11 
 years after the authorizing Act had been obtained, and 14 years 
 after the formal condemnation of the old bridge. The original 
 estimate was £484,000 ; tlie actual cost will be al)out £000.000. The 
 estimate included £74,000 for acquiring property, and tliat has 
 been exceeded by £57,000 ; also £30,000 for a temporary bridge, 
 and that was exceeded by £8,745. When it was seen tluit tlie 
 estimates on these accounts wei'e to be largely exceeded, the hope 
 was held out that £30,000 would be saved on the new bridge, but 
 that estimate has proved still more fallacious, foi- instead of a 
 saving of £30,000 there has been an additional loss of £50,000. 
 These bald facts might be tilled in by numerous sjjecilic blunders 
 with regard to the design of the Itridge, which was twice 
 changed, the acquisition of a))i)roaches and the letting of con- 
 tracts ; but the length of time taken by (his not very formidable 
 undertaking and the excess of cost over tlie estimates are suflicient 
 evidence of incapacity. Vauxhall-bridge is the only large work of 
 the kind as yet undertaken bj- the Council, and we may be thank- 
 ful for it. Londoners coimnonly believe that the Tower-bridge 
 was built by the Council, because Progressive speakers and news- 
 papers credit it witli every improvement ; but that valuable 
 addition to London's highways, which really does show some 
 imagination, is the work of the etfete City Corporation. 
 Lambeth-bridge has for years been .so unsafe that trallic lias had 
 to be restricted, and in 1893 the Council thought that it " must
 
 4i 
 
 he rebuilt at the earliest moment," but that moment has not yet 
 come. The bridge has been put olf, like the main drainage, 
 because of " the heavy capital expenditure to which the Council 
 is committed," As tlie estimated cost is £'872,000, which we 
 might expect by analogy to swell to £"1,100,000 under a Progres- 
 sive administration, there is cause for thankfulness in the delay. 
 If progress in the cost of works between estimate and execution 
 is the sort of progress Londoners want, no one can contest the 
 claim of tlie Progressive party to tlieir confidence. 
 
 There is another point in connexion with Vatixhall-bridgt^ 
 which deserves attention. In various official reports the \^sti- 
 mated cost shows extraordinary discrepancies. In some it is 
 stated as £454,000, in others as £484,000, and in one (annual 
 re))ort 1895, p. 16) as £380,000. Such discrepauceis occur too 
 often in the oflicial documents to be attril)uted to mere clerical 
 errors, which would he sufficiently I'eprehensible. It appears 
 that, when it is desii'ed to recommend some jjroject, a low 
 estimate is nauied ; when the cost is found to exceed the esti- 
 mate, then a higher sum is put forward.
 
 February 25, 1907. 
 VII. 
 
 Of the more inipoilfint )nil)lic services couipiilsorily laid iij)on 
 the Council, as distiiip:iiis]iccl from those which it takes ui)on 
 itself, we have discussed three — main drainage, insanitary 
 liousinft-, and street improvements. There remain three others — 
 namely, i)arks and open spaces, lire prevention, and education. 
 The lirst two of these need not detain us long-. They are, 
 ha|)pily, non-contentious duties, which have not been admini- 
 stered on party lines. It would be sufficient to congratulate the 
 Council ui)on the ivsults and to leave them were it not for the 
 persistent attempts to make party capital for the Progressives 
 out of them. The electors are told, "Look at the parks and 
 gardens and the lire brigade; see what we haA'e done for you ! 
 If j'ou put the other men in, they will take away the parks 
 and gardens and reduce the fire brigade." It is not likely that 
 any electors are sufficiently imbecile to believe the latter part of 
 this electioneering nonsense, but a good many may be taken in 
 by the former, and really believe that they owe the open spaces 
 of London and the fire brigade solely to the ettorts of the Pro- 
 gressive party. It is quite possible that some members of the 
 l)arty, after long breathing the vainglorious atmosphere which 
 lias enveloped Spring Gardens for several years, may believe it 
 themselves. But a very bi-ief examination of the facts will show 
 tliat it has no foundation. 
 
 "With regard to parks and oi)eu spaces, accessible to the 
 public, in and round the metropolis, we are extraordinarily 
 fortunate. This is the one feature in which London excels all 
 other cities. In number and extent, and still more in variety 
 and dittusion, they are imrivalled and even unapproached. The 
 unique thing aboiit them is their distribution all over and all 
 round the town. Other cities have large and famous ])arks, but 
 the amount of open space Is concentrated in a few spots, and else- 
 wliere there is nothing. London has the large areas too, and 
 more of them than any other city, but it also has an Immense 
 number of small ones scattered ahcmt In every direction ; they 
 are not equally distributed, but no part is without them. Many 
 of them have gi'eat cliarm and interest, though but little known 
 to the public. This happy possession, to which justice has never 
 been done either by visitors or by i-esidents, has been acquired 
 by degrees and through tlie operation of many agencies, jiublic 
 and private. The London County Council has done its shai-e, 
 and done it well, but it is only one among a number, and not 
 the most important. The following table, compiled fi-om 
 "London Statistics," gives th<> liare facts with regard to the 
 principal ageiu'ies and their respective shares in maintaining
 
 46 
 
 Number. 
 
 Area in Acres. 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 108 
 
 153 
 
 3,977 
 6,4911 
 4,9451 
 264^1 
 
 287 
 
 15,678i 
 
 wliat is the greatest merit of London as a city and ought to be 
 its greatest pride : — 
 
 Parks, &c., in and about London. 
 
 Owned or maintained by 
 
 Government ... 
 City Corporation ... 
 London Connty ConiK-il ... 
 Borougli Councils ... 
 
 Total 
 
 This table does not, hy any means, represent the whole of 
 London's jiossessions in open spaces, hnt only those owned and 
 maintained by public authorities having jurisdiction in the 
 metropolis. Many others are o\\iied and maintained by extra 
 metro|)olitan ])ublic authorities, and some are of large extent ; 
 600 acres of Wiinbledon-connnon, for instance, are not included 
 in the table, though continuous with the county area and topo- 
 graphically more metropolitan than Richmond-jjark, which is one 
 of the Government's contributions, or Epping Forest, which is 
 credited to the City Corporation, and a good deal more than 
 Hainault Forest, which is by far the largest item on the County 
 Council's list. There are also a large nnmber of small places in 
 London maintained by the Metro])olitan I'ublic Gardens Associa- 
 tion. If all the jiarks and commons belongiag to local authori- 
 ties in Greater London were added the aggregate would i)rol>- 
 ably be not far short of 20,000 acres. Greater New York, with a 
 IDopiiIation of 4,000,000 or so, has less than 7,000 acres. Taking 
 the list above, however, as it stands, we see that the County 
 Council maintains a smaller acreage than the City Corporation 
 and a smaller number of ijlaces than the borough councils. And 
 more than half the Comity Council area was bequeathed by tlie 
 Board of Works. The area inherited by the Council, according 
 to its own official I'ejwrts, was 2,056 acres, that added by it is 
 2,303 aci-es. It is a very good record, and I have no intention of 
 decrying it ; but two observations must be made about it. One 
 is that the acquisition of these spaces has l)een effected with the 
 assistance of niunerous agencies ; the ot iu>i- that is has never 
 been a party matter on the Coimcil, but one of general agree- 
 ment, as is sliown by the fact that the Parks Conunittee is (me 
 of the very few conunittoes which have been allowed to have a 
 Moderates chairman. With regard to the first point, some of 
 tiiese spaces have been j)resented by private persons ; Waterlow- 
 park, for instance, an area of 29 acres in the north of London, 
 which was pi'cscnled to I l:c Council in its lirst year. Ifainault 
 Forest, which covci's more than (SOO acres, and therefore 
 represents one-third of the Council's total ac([uisitions, is a 
 r<>cent addition due to the cvertions of J\l r. K. N. Buxton,
 
 47 
 
 verderer of Epping Forest ; the Council was only one contributor 
 to the cost out of many, public and ijvivate. So, too, with 
 Golder's-hill, another large and recent acquisition ; out of 
 £41,000 the Council contributed £12,000, The list might be 
 continued indefinitely. Tlie fact is that the acquisition of 
 oi)eu spaces for tlie public benefit has been a general movement 
 iniated in most cases by private persons and societies and 
 carried tlirough with lielp from all quarters — public subscription, 
 individual nuinihcence. Government departments, local autho- 
 rities, and man.y other bodies sucii as tlie Charity Couunissioners, 
 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Citj^ Corporation. 
 It has had nothing to do with politics, it was carried on 
 vigorously years liefore the County Coimcil was thought of, and 
 the part jilayed by that body has been to contribute to the cost 
 and receive new spaces handed over to its charge as the central 
 metropolitan authority. It looks after them very well, though 
 the regulations are unnecessarily fussy, and spends al)out 
 £125,000 a j-ear on doing it. The claim of the Progressive party 
 to all the credit, as if parks had never been heard of until their 
 advent on the scene, is ludicrous. The Metropolitan I'ublic 
 Gardens Association, a |)rivate society, of which Lord Meath 
 is chairman, has done far more than all the Progressives on 
 this Council, especially for the acquisition of small sjiaces in 
 poor and crowded neigbourhoods. It has laid out 100 gardens 
 and playgrounds, aiul contributetl to the cost of a great many 
 others, besides planting tre(»s and jilacing seats in i)nl)lic 
 thorough fa ri's. 
 
 The history of the Fire Brigade is very similar in regard to 
 administration. Tlie Council inherited an institution not only 
 fully grown, but famous ; it has enlarged and improved it and 
 kept it fairly up-to-date ; it has, in shoi-t, done its dut.y. Bvit 
 this, too, has never been a ])arty question ; it is absurd to 
 suppose that any one, belonging to any party, wants an in- 
 adequate or incomijetent tire brigade, and there is not a shadow 
 of ground for the suggestion that, if the Progressives were 
 turned out of power, the service would suffer. It is alleged on 
 their behalf that the brigade was inadequately equi|)ped when 
 it came under the control of the County Council in ISSU, and 
 that thej' promptly repairt^l the |)revious neglect. The facts 
 ai-e that the number of full (horsed) stations in 1880 was 55, and 
 five years later it was still 55 ; the ninuber of steam Are engines 
 in 1880 was 48 and of manual engines 95, and live years later the 
 numbers were still 48 and 95. The only additions to tiie work- 
 ing equipment in these years were two street stations, two 
 liorses, some lire escapes, and 25 hose carts ; so that, if it was 
 inadequate when the Council took over the l)rigade, it was much 
 more inadequate after five years of control. The fact is it was not 
 inadequate according to the standard then prevailing and the 
 sphere of operations. The staff was no doubt, too small ; Captain
 
 48 
 
 Shaw reported it so, and it was increased during the same period 
 from 674 to 800. Since then there has been a steady increase 
 l)oth of stafif and of all appliances, except hose carts and mannal 
 engines, which have almost dropped out. The number of 
 hydrants, fire alarms, and telephone lines has been trebled. 
 Tliis increase is perfectly natural ; it is due to the growth of 
 London, the extension of the operations of the brigade to 
 outlying areas, the completion of a constant water supply 
 enal)ling more hydrants to be fixed, the improvement of mechani- 
 cal apparatus, and the rising standard of fire brigade work in 
 other countries, which is reflected in the demands of the chief 
 executive officer for the time being, who of course wishes his 
 machine to be second to none. The Council has not neglected 
 tliis service, and that is to its credit : but it has nothing to do 
 with tlie Progressive ]wlicy. Tlie Fire Brigade is not so much 
 as mentioned in " The London Vrogiamme," and the greatest 
 improvement introdiiced witli i-egard to fires is the very useful 
 and efficient salvage corps oi'ganized by the insiirance companies. 
 If any distinctive influence can be traced at all to the Pro- 
 gressive spirit, it is in the friction generated on several occasions 
 between the Council and the execTitive by the interference of 
 fussy and self-important members with the discii^line and work 
 of the brigade. The Council has changed its chief officer three 
 times ; Captain Shaw, who made the brigade and was the most 
 famous of all fire ca])tains, could not work with it ; and if the 
 jH'esent holder of the post were not a very strong man it would 
 iiave changed ag-ain ere this for the reason given. Thei-e is no 
 room for discipline in the guardian-angel theory of administra- 
 tion, and Socialists consider it " degrading " ; but a fire l)rigade 
 cannot be worked without it. 
 
 The Parks and the Fire Brigade are the most prominent 
 services which have, happily, been administered on non-party 
 lines ; but there are many others of a minor or less public 
 cliavacter, and it may be said generally of sucli duties that tliey 
 liavo been ])erformed in an efticiont and satisfactory manner. 
 Progressive members are entitled to full credit for tliese services 
 and to the gratitude of the connnunity for mucli routine work of 
 a tedious and obscure but necessary kind. It is when tlieir 
 action is governed l)y party considerations, by the tlieories and 
 slii))l)oleths derived from Socialism, that extravagance, malad- 
 ministration, and failure begin to dog their steps. The reason is 
 tliat those theories spring from a sentimental enthusiasm which 
 despises facts, and are sustained by fallacious arguments, in 
 wiiich inconvenient truths are ignored. The captain of a ship 
 may have tlie loftiest views on the functions of navigation and the 
 conduct ofa ship, but, if liis sent iments cause him to ignoi-e the laws 
 of navigation estal)lislK'd l)y experience and to neglect attention to 
 the compass, they will eventually land liiin and iiis vessel on the 
 rocks, wliich are still thei-e though not recognized by hisphilosophy.
 
 February 27, 1907. 
 VIII. 
 
 I come to tho subject of Education, tlie larj>:est of all the 
 fliities laid upon tlie Council ; none shows more plainly the 
 unfortunate influence exercised b}' the lonj;- domination of Pro- 
 ft-ressive party politics. Down to 1904 the educational activity 
 of the Coimcil was practically confined to cari-ylng on some 
 " industrial " (i*eformatory or reclamatoiy) schools, and to 
 assisting? technical institutions and a few secondary schools ; it 
 was of a non-contentious, unobtrusive, and nseftil character, and 
 it attracted little attention. In 1904 the Council became the 
 educational authority for London, and assimied resjjonsibility for 
 all tlie jniblic schools — elementary, secondary, technical, s])ecial, 
 and industrial — except those administered by the Poor Law 
 authorities. This portentious addition to the Coxmcil's other 
 duties was the severest test of capacity ever placed upon it. A 
 few statistics will help to demonstrate the mafi,nitude of the 
 undertaking. There were 988 elementary schools, with accom- 
 modation for 800,000 children and with 760,000 on the rolls ; this 
 represents about one-eighth of the elementary school children in 
 England and Wales ; the number of teachers was 17,482. Li 
 addition there wei-e 5,839 children in special schools for the 
 blind (271), deaf (576), mentally defective (4,030), and piiysically 
 defective (962) ; also 2,134 boys and girls in ten industrial 
 schools ; also nearlj- 100,000 stiuleiits attending classes in 
 58 evening schools ; also some 60 secondary and 40 technical 
 schools receiving grants and subject to more or less control from 
 the educational authority. How did the Council approach the 
 gigantic task of dealing with all these institutions ? 
 
 Any body of men, realizing their responsibility, anxious to 
 discharge it conscientiously, and conscious of their own limita- 
 tions, which are those of human nature, would enter iipon such a 
 task in a spirit of diffidence, would aim at mastering by degrees 
 the problems before them, and in doing so would seek all the 
 assistance from experience available ; above all, they would be 
 cautious in disturbing the machinery at work and would not 
 attempt large experiments or innovations until they had 
 mastered the details and were quite sure of their ground. That 
 is not the spirit displayed by the Council ; it is not the Pro- 
 gressive spirit, which at Spring-gardens is a spirit of prancing 
 self-confidence and self-importance. Responsibility sometimes 
 sobers persons afflicted with that weakness, and there was a 
 chance of recovery for the Progressive Coimcil ; but the disease 
 had been too long indxilged, and had advanced too far. They 
 failed completely at the test, so completely that they did not 
 even know that it was one. It is only fair to say that they did 
 
 4
 
 50 
 
 not seek it ; but they seek otliers which would reduce it to com- 
 parative insignificance, and their conduct of this unsought diity 
 is a measure of their fitness for the rest. They entered on the 
 business of ediication in a mood of complacent self-sufficiency 
 wliicli was absohitely fatal to success ; they saw in it primarily 
 another opportunity for demonstrating the wisdom, ejiligliten- 
 ment, and superioi-ity of tlie Progressive party. Swollen witii 
 self-importance, they regarded the supi'emacy of the party, not 
 the needs of education, as the first consideration, and, instead of 
 obtaining as much assistance as possible, they resolved to confine 
 tiiemselves to as little as the law would allow. Their first duty 
 under the Act was to eonstitute an Education Committee, of 
 wliich at least a majority was to be a])pointed by tlie Council ; 
 and, for the rest, the Act provided for the ap])ointment " of 
 persons of experience in education and of persons acquainted 
 with tlie needs of the various kinds of schools in tlie county," for 
 thi> inclusion of women and the appointment of members of the 
 late School Board. Ample scope was thus given for the forma- 
 tion of a large and widely-i'epresentative bodj', ccHitaining 
 members of varied experience. But that is not how the Council 
 construed its duty. The General Purposes Committee — a large 
 committee overwhelmingly Progressive— drew up a report to the 
 effect that the Education Committee " should l)e one which would 
 work harmoniously with the Council in developing a complete 
 and well-co-ordinated system of London education, and that its 
 constitution should be such as to retain the administraticm of 
 educati(m under real public control as far as that was possible." 
 This is another way of saying that education should be run on 
 jiarty lines by the Progressives on the Council, and that as few 
 outside members should be appointed as possible. So it was 
 interpreted. The committee was formed of 38 members of the 
 Council — in the jii'oportion of nearly three Progressives to one 
 Moderate — together with five women and five additional members 
 drawn from the old School Board, 48 in all. Thus all the work of 
 the old Board jtliix all the voluntary schools, the secondary and 
 technical schools, was undertaken by a smaller l)ody, most of the 
 members of which were already fully occupied with other 
 municipal duties. 
 
 This initial blunder showed that the Council, in its excessive 
 self-confidence, totally failed to realize the magnitude of the task 
 hefore it. Others, dictated by the same motives, naturally fol- 
 lowed. In order to ensure " harmonious working " — otherwise, 
 tlie supremacy of the party machine — and to jirevent any iinpair- 
 iiieiit of the Council's importance by even the semblance of a co- 
 ordinate liody, the subordinate position of the Education Com- 
 mittee was carefully emphasized by (h^legating to it as little 
 power as possible, and demonstratively placing it on the same 
 footing as the other committees. One feature of this policy was 
 the withdrawal of the committee's jiroceedings from publicity
 
 51 
 
 and the oxcliision of the I'ross, wliich was a little too strong 
 even for the stanehest supporters of the Progressive part}-. 
 Tliey discovered that their idols were liegiuning to sutler from 
 the distressing complaint vulgarly known as " swelled head," 
 and protested loudly against this infringement of democratic 
 principles ; but it I'oall.y flowed naturally from the policy con- 
 sistently pursued and previonly applauded Ijy their new critics, 
 who cried oxit only when the consequences touched themselves. 
 Another feature, which attracted loss attention, was the 
 swathing of educational administration in the most complete 
 system of red-tape liondage ever yet devised. The work of the 
 Kducation Committee rec|uires a number of technical executive 
 officers, who only have to do with schools, and wonld naturally be 
 under the jurisdiction of the committee, as is the case in similar 
 circumstances everywhere else. But that wonld make the com- 
 mittee q(«^(si-independent and too important ; if it had its own 
 staff, it might rival and even overshadow the Council itself, 
 which has always been bitterly jealous of all other metropolitan 
 bodies. That would never do ; so the educational officers were 
 to be Coimcil officers attached to the corresponding executive 
 departments of the Council, the schools' medical officer to the 
 health department, the schools' surveyor to the county sur- 
 A'eyor's department, the education accountant to the comp- 
 troller's department, the educaticm clerk to the chief clerk's 
 office, and so on. In short, the education officers were to be 
 assistants to the other officers, who had nothing to do with the 
 educational work. The effect of this extraordinary scheme was 
 was to break up what had been a complete working machine 
 under the School Board, and to distribute the parts over the 
 wiiole field of the Council's operations. If carried OTit strictly, 
 it would mean the cumbrous intervention of the Council and the 
 department concerned between the Education Committee and its 
 special officers in every transacticui. Kvery instruction and 
 report would have to go backwards and forwards between com- 
 mittee. Council, and department. Tlie fact that this impossible 
 organization was devised merely in order to keej) the Education 
 Committee in its place, so to speak, demonstrates how little the 
 Council was concerned for the efficient administration of educa- 
 tion, and how completely subordinate that purpose was to the 
 maintenance of its o\\ni importance. 
 
 How differently the situation might have been treated may be 
 seen from the exami)le of any of the great provincial towns, which 
 had to solve the same problem and organize a complete scheme of 
 educational administration. Manciiester will do as well as any other 
 for an illustration. The niunber of children on the elementary 
 school roll was about 110,000, or hardly more than one-seventh of 
 the London total ; and the other educational departments were 
 in i)retty much the same proportions. But the Manchester City 
 Council took its rospoiisil)ilities seriously, and appointed an 
 
 1 -2
 
 &2 
 
 education committee of 57 members, of whom no fewer than 27 
 were dra«Ti from ontside. The}' took repi-esentatives from the 
 University, the secondary schools, tlie technical schools, the 
 Cliurch of England, Roman Catholic, and Nonconformist ele- 
 mentary schools, from the old School Board, from the teachers, 
 tlie chamber of commerce, the trades council, the women's trades 
 eoxmcil, and from elsewhere. They toolc all the assistance which 
 the law allowed them to obtain ; they invited men of learning 
 and jwsition, men engaged in teaching, men rei^resenting all 
 classes and interests and the most A^aried exi)erience. They 
 availed tliemselves of the previously existing organization. In 
 short, they took the coui*se best calciUated to serve the pnrix)se 
 of efficient administration, without regard to party politics or 
 their own aggrandisement. The Education Committee, thiis con- 
 stituted, is a coin])lete organism, with its own staff ; it woi"ks 
 liarmouiously with tlie City Council as a co-ordinate body. It is 
 large enougli to attend to all the affairs which it has to ad- 
 minister, and it contains persons who understand them. It works 
 sympathetically with the managers, and treats all its schools and 
 teachers alike. Mancliester is merely an example ; the other 
 large towns liave all acted broadly in the same way. There is 
 not one which has made such a melanciioly exhibition of incai)a- 
 city as London, because there is not one in whicii the education 
 authority has been dcmiinated by such unhappy motives. 
 
 The failure of the County Coinicil was a foregone conclusion 
 from tlie manner in which it started. It was warned of what 
 would happen, and what has happened. Experienced men pre- 
 dicted that wastefiU and extravagant exi>enditure must result, 
 that the only permanent element would be the paid otiicial staff", 
 and that the actual power, withcmt representative responsi- 
 bility, would he in the hands of a bureaucracy. The Council 
 proceedetl to fulfil these predictions to the letter. It created an 
 enormous new start", in which there was no room for tlie most 
 exjierienced men who had served the School Board and knew the 
 work best. They were kicked out, not for the sake of economy 
 or efficiency, but because they had experience and formed a link 
 with the past, which was not consistent with the policy of 
 creating an entirely new machine peculiar to the Council. An 
 exception was made of the architect, because his experience 
 might be utilized to hany the voluntary schools, and, since his 
 pj'ofessional seniority and standing forbade his serving as a 
 suboi'dinate to the Council's aivhitect, he was jiermitted to 
 retain his old j)osition and have his own department. But, now 
 that he has served the Council's turn, it is proposed to get rid 
 of him too. On the other hand, new and highly-paid posts were 
 created with a lavish extravagance ; the cost of inspection alone 
 rose from £10,000 to £20,000, and that of administration in 
 general from i'200,000 to tSWO.OdO. On this head it may be as 
 well to <|U<i(e the most competent witness. The (Progressive)
 
 53 
 
 fliati'miiii of the Edueatioiial Accounts Sulj-Comniittee said, in 
 :i speech on the ediicutiou estimates delivered iu the Council 
 last May : — 
 
 One fniestioii calling;' lor very serious consideration was 
 tiie large increase iu tlie cost of administration. In tiu> last 
 ye;ir of the School Board this was approximately £200, OOO, 
 including;' onlorcement of scliool attendance. It was now 
 a|)|)roximately £300,000, an increase in four years of 50 per 
 cent. Tliat this was excessive was shown by the fact tliat tlie 
 general expenditure on education had increased less than one- 
 lialf as rapidly. It arose from the nuilti plication of inspectors, 
 advisers, and other highly-paid officials. ... So serious 
 did he consider the increasing administrative charges that he 
 advocated the appointment of a special committee to go into 
 the wiiole question of whetiier a consideral)le saving hoth in 
 time and money could not he effected by the alxdition of the 
 dual system of the clerics' and the executive departments. At 
 present tlie administrative machinery was fearfully and wondej*- 
 fuUy nuide, bub extravagantly costly and exceedingly slow iu 
 action. 
 
 Tlie predictions uttered by experienced critics in 1904 were 
 thus verified to the letter in 1906 from the Progressive beuches 
 iu tiie Council. It is admitt<:H;l on all hands that the educational 
 business is really run by this costly army of officials, oi-ganizetl iu 
 the impossible manner described above, and condemned iu the 
 quotation just given ; and that the Education Committee lias no 
 real control over it. That is the result of the Council's jiolicy ; 
 it would not let the Education Committee do the work, and it 
 cannot do the work itself. The same policy, i-eacliing l)eyond 
 the committee and the staff, has had the most imfortunate effect 
 on the schools. Instead of co-ojierating with the managers, the 
 Council iuis snu1)bed tlieuj, given them as little power as possible, 
 liroken up tiieir organization, rearranged it and destroyed their 
 relations with the educational autlu)rlty ; it has bullied and 
 liarassed the voluntary schools, iu defiance of election ))ledges 
 given l)y l*i"ogressivo candidates ; it has made the most mark«Ml 
 distinction iK^tweeu them and tiu* othei's, abolished iis many as it 
 ct)uld, and treated the teachers with conttMupt ; it has upset the 
 woi'king of all the elementary schools, and degraded the pi-ofes- 
 sion. So says the President of the National Union of Teachers, 
 and lie puts it down to " the harassing of inspectors, the iiiter- 
 fei-ence of officials, the unsympathetic attitude of the Education 
 Committee, and, when the cost of living is considered, the com- 
 j)ara(ively ])oor salaries ])aid to teachei's." (The SrlKnilnuiati'r, 
 March, 190(5.) The responsil)ility of the I'l-ogressive policy for 
 the disoi'ganization of the schools was emphasized by the resigna- 
 tion of CaTU)u Jephson, I'rogi-essive member for Walwortii, as a
 
 • 51 
 
 protest against the policy, and iu particular against — (1) The 
 destruction of sympathetic management of the schools, and the 
 suljstitution of mechanical and official control ; (2) the domina- 
 tion of the officials on the Council ; (3) the interference of the 
 Finance Committee in educational matters not Ijearing on 
 finance. Another Progressive memljer said in reference to tlie 
 same complaint (Council meeting May 15, 1900) : — 
 
 The plan seemed to be to duplicate the officials in every 
 department. He had never been on the sulj-comimittee where 
 there were not more officials than members present. The 
 additional staff of the clerk of the Council ran away with 
 .4'56,750. There appeared to be no corresponding increase in 
 the efficiency of the schools as a consetxnence of this increased 
 expenditure in officials. Indeed, the constant worry had had 
 au unsettling iuHuence on the teaching staff, and Canon 
 Jephson had resigned his seat as a protest against the domina- 
 tion of the officials of the Council. The whole matter recpiired 
 serious consideration, and he tliought a special cormnittee 
 should be appointed to inquire into it. 
 
 The treatment of the vohnitary schools has been most unfair 
 and oppressive, and inidisguisedly intended to scpieeze them out 
 of existence, although they are carried on at nmcli less cost than 
 tlie Council schools, and the Coinicil's own inspectors, appointed 
 to surA'ey them, were " without exception much impressed by 
 the teaching given in them " and reported most favourably upon 
 it. When, in November, 1904, the architect presented the first 
 part of his report on the structural requirements of thevohmtary 
 schools, it was held back, so that his requirements eoiild not be 
 carried oiit, in order to wait for the complete report and to pre- 
 sent what Mr. McKinnon Wood called " one great pictxire " of 
 the condition of the schools. The sole uiulisguised object of this 
 uuuKjL'Uvre was to make a political demonstration against this 
 class of schools. 
 
 The secondary scliools liave been Iiarassed and upset l)y the 
 same j)olicy as tlu^ primary ones. At a meeting of the Incor- 
 porated Association of Headmasters, in the Guildhall, on 
 January 11, the headmaster of University College School moved 
 a resolution of protest against the interference of local educa- 
 tional autliorities witii tiie administration of secondary schools, 
 and said in tlie course of his speecii : — 
 
 The wiiole adruinistiative policy of tlie London County 
 Council is a|)|)ai(Mitly based on assumptions most unlhittering 
 to governors and to headmasters. It might have been thought 
 that ins|)ection by the Boai'd of Education afforded an 
 adequate guarantee that schools were being efficiently con- 
 ducted. The fee-paying parent is content to accept such
 
 a guarantee, but the London County Council need i'urthei- 
 assurance and police the scliools with inspectors who make 
 unaiuiounced visits. Now the headmasters of London 
 secondary scliools do not need policing. They do not need 
 the advice and suggestions of the insijectors of the London 
 County Council, Ijecause they do not i-ecognize the qualilica- 
 tion which actual exiserience of lieadniastership can alouc 
 confei'. . . . The right of the headmaster to act as supreme 
 authority in matters of discipline is, apparently, not recog- 
 nized. Instances are not wanting in which the headuiaster has 
 heen asked to justify an inifavotirahle report on a pupil. No 
 headmaster worth his salt will submit the decision of intei-nal 
 affairs to the ai-bitrament of a chief clerk or executive otticer, 
 the point is that he ought not lo be asked to do so. 
 
 An arrogant, cast-iron Ijureaucratic tyranny, crushing all 
 zeal, enthusiasm, and interest in those who come under it and who 
 do the real work of teaching, is the system set up 1)y the I'ro- 
 gressive party, and the inevitable result of the Progressive 
 policy. The vexatious interference with secondaiy schools is 
 an integral part of the whole. 
 
 The failure is obvious, admitted, inideniable. Things have 
 got into such a mess that some Progressives are now l)y way of 
 urging the recreation of a School Board. That is tantamount to 
 a complete confession of failure, to which those who have Ijeen in 
 charge of affairs natxirally do not assent. Nor is there anj' reason 
 for the step. If the County Council will conduct its educational 
 administration in the same spirit and on the same lines as other 
 great towns, it will succeed equally well. It set out to show the 
 world how to do it, and has succeeded, as persons animated l)y 
 that spirit usually do, in demonstrating to perfection how not to 
 do it. 
 
 What is the cost of this collossal blunder ? Brielly, an adili- 
 tion of 4d. to the educaticmal rate in three years. Here are the 
 figures :— 1894-5, 10-45d. ; 1903-4, IS'lSd. ; 1906-7, 19d. That 
 is to say, while the School Board inci-eased l)y iid. in ten years, 
 the Council has increased by 4d. in three years in spite of the 
 advantage of an increased assessment. Yet Progressive candi- 
 dates are arguing that in ten years they have increased the rates 
 by only 'Id., when they have increased the education rate alone 
 l)y 4d, in three years. That rate is paid l)y the same ratepayei-s 
 as the I'est. Money has heen poured out on this, that, and the 
 other without plan, co-ox'dination, or control. It must have done 
 something for education, though the good results ai-e not dis- 
 ceinil)le amid the bad ones, and are certainly not commensurate 
 with the expenditure. The average gross cost per child in 
 London County Council schools was, in 1905, £'4 15s, 9d., against 
 £2 18s. 7d, in Manchester. Lord Welby has pleaded, as usual, 
 for prudence in at least co-ordinating and graduating schemes ;
 
 56 
 
 lie lias 1)eg'ge(l the Council to lay down for its own guidance a 
 fmaueial policy. " Uid it," lie asketl on May 16, 1905, " cou- 
 teiiiplate no limit on the progress of this expenditure ?" Evi- 
 dently it did not, for on May 8, 1906, he was still urging the 
 Council " at all events to try to practise economy in snch 
 matters as expensive sites and decorated buildings." Bnt the 
 only jwint in which it practises economy is in the treatment of 
 old i)nl)lic servants. It has hehaved in a very shal)1)y fashion to 
 several old officers of the School Board ; hut the case of Captain 
 Scriven, of the Shaftesbury training ship, is a particular example 
 to which I heg to call attention. In 1877 — 30 years ago — he 
 gave up his commission, with i>rospects and pension, in the Royal 
 Navy, in which he had served as navigating lieutenant for 19 
 years, in order to take charge of the Shafteslniry. For 28 je^irs 
 he carried on the school, in whicli thousands of hoys who had 
 got into troulile passed through his hands and were turned into 
 useful citizens. The valuable character of the work, and the 
 admirable manner in which it was performed, repeatedly i*eceived 
 oflicial notice. In 1905 the Council decided to close the Shaftes- 
 bury, and all the.y could do for Captain Scriven was to give him 
 six months' notice and " allow him to claim " the pension of 
 £100 a year to which he is entitled from the superaniuiation fund 
 of the School Board, to which he has himself contributed all 
 these years. Cajitain Scriven applied for compensation for 
 " abolition of oflice " under tlie Education Act, but was refused 
 on the ground of what is virtually a legal quibble. He has 
 appealed to the Treasury, which says that, as the Council has 
 refused to take his claim into consideration, it " has no jurisdic- 
 tion." So he has been kicked backwards and forwards like a 
 football, and, having served his country for nearly 50 years, and 
 done work of peculiar A'alue to the commxmity for 28, he is to 
 retire into a penurious old age with the consciousness of having 
 done his duty. This is how the Council economizes ; and, mean- 
 time, it relinrpiislies .4*26,000 a year in fees at voluntary schools 
 against the wishes of ])a rents and managers, and spends £300, 000 
 a year on an army of officials, who are to a large extent supei'- 
 lluous, and occui>ied in disturbing tiie business of education and 
 disheartening those who carry it on. People who set out to be 
 generous before they are just — a distinguishing mark of Pro- 
 gressivism — invariably end liy giving justice the go-by alto- 
 gether. It only remians to add that tlie Superannuation (Educa- 
 tion) Fund at the. disposal of the Council has in liand a balance 
 of £58,000, of which £57,000 is invested.
 
 P'ebruary 28, 1907. 
 
 IX. 
 
 THK TRAMWAYS. 
 
 Ill connexion witli the ))rosent eontost tramways liavo Immmi 
 move prominent tlian any other lirancii of the County Council's 
 worlv ; a stranger iniji;iit almost suppose the election to ))e a 
 battle of the tramways. This is not due to their intrinsic 
 importance, biit to the fact that the Progi'essive party bases its 
 claims to the confidence of the electors mainly on the i-esults 
 achieved in relation to the tramways, and the other side denies 
 tliat (he alleged results are genuine. The controversy is ratlier 
 tedious, and the [)ublic does not appear to take so much intei-est 
 in it as the combatants. Nevertheless, it is important for the 
 following reasons. One of the cardinal features of the Progres- 
 sive policy is the advocacy of numicipal trading, and municipal 
 tramways are a form, a mild form, of municipal trading. Now 
 tlie Socialist axiom, from which the Progressives derive their 
 inspiration, is that municipal trading, which involves collective 
 ownership, is in itself desirable and i)referable to jJi'i^'i^te 
 trading and individual ownersiiip, irrespective of results. They 
 assume that the results must be better as an article of faith, 
 needing no proof ; and, if the event falsilies their calculations, 
 they remain just as convinced as before and jjut down the failuie 
 to anything but the theory, which cannot err. The public does 
 not take that view ; it cares nothing about theoiy, but judges 
 bj' results. If collective ownership or municipal trading gives 
 better vahie, then the public is quite willing to accejit it, but 
 not otherwise. The first thing, therefore, is to convince the 
 public that a particular project will have very beneficial 
 results, and that expenditure on it will be remunerative. To 
 that end lavish ))i'()mises are made, just as when some speculator 
 wishes to persuade the public io invest in a doubtful luidei- 
 taking ; the shyer the pulilic the more lavish the promises. 
 But here comes the diti'erence. If the private speculation fails 
 to realize the promises licld foi'tli, tlie failure cannot be con- 
 cealed. An adroit linancier may stave off exposiire for a time, 
 as we know from the law Courts, but eventually he is cauglit, 
 juggle he never so cleverly. But municipal undertakings have 
 a resource which he has not — the rates ; and the temptation is 
 verj- strong to improve the apparent resiilts by shifting jjart of 
 the burden which should be borne by the undertaking on to 
 the rates. This is ((uite lawful according to the Progressive 
 creed, which sanctifies the means by tiie end, and holds the 
 cause of collective ownership so sacred as to justify the use of 
 anj- means to promote it. The net result of this tampering witli 
 the truth is not to piit money into any one's pockets, except, 
 perhaps, those of some favoured workmen ; it is only to deceive
 
 S8 
 
 the jniblic into giving theii* couMeiiee to persons and tlieii- 
 sanction to proceedings from which it woiild be withheld if 
 they knew the true facts. That is its object, for otherwise such 
 transactions would be purposeless. The real point of the trara- 
 waj' controversy is that the Progressive party is charged with 
 conduct of this kind and with trying to retain the confidence 
 of the ratepayers by putting forward fictitious prottts derived 
 from municipal tramways. It is by no means the only case. The 
 practice of " writing down " the value of building sites and 
 charging them to the rates in order to show better results in 
 housing is another instance, which has been discussed in a pre- 
 vious article. An analagous practice, piu'sued some years ago 
 in the Works Department of cooking the accoiuits, so as to 
 conceal losses on some items by tlebiting them to others, caused 
 a crisis in tlie Council and was genei'ally regarded as a serious 
 scandal, although it did not involve any charge on the rates ; 
 and another method of showing an imaginarj' pi'olit is alleged 
 against the present "Works Department. The tramway case is, 
 therefore, only one of several charges of deceptive finance ; 
 but at the pi'esent time it is attracting most attention and is, 
 indeed, peculiarly pertinent in view of the Progressive demand 
 for the municipalization of all the means of locomotion in 
 London. The answer which the public will give to that demand 
 or any part of it, or to any similar demands, whenever put 
 forward, will depend on the previous record. If the past 
 management of similar luidertakings has been satisfactory, then 
 tlie demand for extension will be considered ; if it has been 
 unsatisfactory, the demand will certainly be rejected. In other 
 words, the master will go by the applicant's " character," and 
 a deceptive balance-sheet is nothing less than a false character. 
 Therefore stress is rightly laid on knowing the precise facts. 
 They can be made fairly clear at no great length. 
 
 The municipal ownership of tramways was contemplated by 
 Parliament 20 years befoi-e the County Council came into 
 existence, and provision was made for it in tlie Tramways Act 
 of 1870, which empowers the local authority to ac(iuire com- 
 piilsorily any tramway at tlie expiry of 21 years from tlie time 
 when its construction was authorized. It was an extraordinarily 
 foolish Act ; it not only discouraged the development of 
 electrical traction by private enterprise, but made the acquisi- 
 tion of tramways by the local authority an imnecessarily com- 
 plicated and difilcult matter, as the County Council found when 
 the time came to put the Act into operation. The tramway 
 lines, liaving been constructed at ditt'erent times, only b(^camo 
 purcliase^ible in disconnected instalments. The first section of 
 about four miles was bouglit in 1801 and was leased at a rental 
 which bi'ought in 5 per cent. That was in the early days of 
 the Council, before the " London programme " had made its 
 a^ipearance and i-ational councils still had weight ; the transac-
 
 tiou was I'ciiuiiici-ativc. In IHU'2 oLlier lengths boloiigiiif;- to the 
 North Mi'(i-oi)olitim Company hecame pmrhaseable, but they 
 were not consecutive, and tlie company refused to sell the 
 whole ; so nothing was done for several years except litigation. 
 Then the practical party (connnonly called Moderate) on tlie 
 Council came to the i-escuo with a suggestion to settle by agree- 
 ment, and on this the Tramways Committee was authorized to 
 entertain proposals from the company. The company thei-e- 
 upon made proposals — namely, to sell the whole of the lines 
 and work them on a lease ; and eventually the terms wei-e 
 accei)ted. It was found on calculation tiuit these terms would 
 be much more i)rotitable tliaii if tlie Council actpiired and worked 
 the trams itself ; and in 181)5, when the deal took place, common 
 sense had regained some sway at Spring-gardens through the 
 previoTis election. The lines were bought and leased, and they 
 brought in about £'70,000 a year. The total net prolits down to 
 last year were £';U4,851. The reader will jjlease note here the 
 attitude of the Moderate party to municij)al tramways ; so far 
 from o|)posing they assisted the Coimcil, which had got the thing 
 in a deadlock, to acquire the tramways and to make a very good 
 bargain ont of them. The Council thus became the owner of 
 48 miles of tramways on the north side of the river. Subse- 
 quently between 1890 and 1905, it acquired 52 miles on the 
 southern side, and these it has worked itself. The greater part 
 has been electrified and other sections are in process of electriti- 
 cation. The controversy is mainly about this part. The Pro- 
 gressive party is very anxious to show that the lines worked by 
 the Council are highly remunerative undertakings ; their critics 
 deny the claim. It ought to be easy to demonstrate the facts 
 one way or the other ; but the accounts are presented in such a 
 form that it is almost impossible to get a clear result from them, 
 which is in itself suspicious. There is no doubt about the profit 
 from the northern lines, but no human being can say what is the 
 real state of the case with regard to the southern ones. One 
 thing is quite certain ; the promises of vast prolits and relief 
 to the rates — casually placed by the I'rogressive Election Coui- 
 mittee in 1901 at " from one to two millions per annum " show 
 no signs of being realized. Here is the record for all the 
 Council's tramways : — - 
 
 Pitoirrs JHOM TuA.MWAYs Ai'i'MKi) TO Kelief of Katks. 
 
 ... l-L'O.OOO 
 
 1897-98 ... 
 
 ... £49,000 
 
 1902-o:j 
 
 1898-99 ... 
 
 -- 
 
 190;5-04 
 
 1899-19(1(1 ... 
 
 ... 110.592 
 
 1904-05 
 
 1900-01 ... 
 
 69,000 
 
 1905-0() 
 
 1901-02 ... 
 
 45,000 
 
 1900-07 
 
 The ligures ai-e diU'erently arranged in other statements, but 
 the total is about the same— namely, £293,000 ; this is less than 
 the net profits from the northei-n lines alone, and in three of the
 
 60 
 
 years in which profits were applied, to the rates the aeeoiints 
 show an excess of expenditure over receipts, so that there were 
 no real profits at all. However it is taken, one can only come to 
 the conchision that the southern lines have not only earned no 
 profits at all, but have swallowed np a good deal of those made by 
 the northern ones. The southern lines are credited with having 
 earned £87,000 in seven yeai's on a capital expenditure of over 
 £3,000,000, while the northern ones earned £258,000 in tlie same 
 period on a capital expenditure of £871,000. This is nothing to 
 boast of on behalf of the soutliern lines ; but, meagre as the 
 result is, it cannot be accepted as valid. Tlie tramway accounts 
 have been " written down," like the housing accounts, by the 
 omission of charges for street widening, for annual depreciation, 
 and for the services of other departments. Usually, when streets 
 have to be widened for the purjjose of tramways, the cost is 
 charged against the tramways. That is done in the case of tram- 
 waj' companies in and about London. The Council invented a 
 plan of its own, by which only one-third was to be charged to the 
 tramway, and the rest put upon tlie rates ; but even this has not 
 been carried out. The Government auditor found (April, 1906) 
 that a total amoimt of £89,305 had been cliarged to the tramways 
 account for street widening; but " the total siim estimated to 
 be chargeable to the tramways account " for street widening was 
 £377,260, and this represented, roughly, one-tliird of the net 
 cost. A])parently, therefore, street improvements have Ijeen 
 undertaken for tramway purposes at a cost of about £1,100,000, 
 of which £90,000 only has been charged against the tramway 
 account. No one will ever know what those tramways have 
 really cost. With regard to depreciation, it is enough to say that 
 on about tlie same capital expenditure Glasgow allows £200,000 a 
 year for depreciation, the London County Coimcil has recently 
 allowed £35,000. That is the niaxhntim ; in some years it has 
 allowed notliing at all. There is not th<^ sliglitost doubt that if 
 tlie Council tramways were treated financially as others are they 
 would sliow a very large annual deficit. 
 
 The main reason for this state of things appears to be the 
 excessive cost of electrification, which placed a crushing burden 
 of debt upon the concern ; it has never been explained, but is 
 |)rol)alily due in part to tiie Works Department and in part to 
 general extJ'avagance and mismanagement. Lord Welhy said 
 (December, 1905) that tlioiigli lie believed " tlie time would come 
 when tlie tramways would ])ay their way " (a tacit admission that 
 tliey do not yet) " and provide large profits, lie could not helj) 
 saying tliat the chairman of tin* lligliways Committee was an 
 expensive luxury to London." Tlie failure to pay their way is 
 not due to siijierior service or superior labour conditions, for 
 they are not superior. Tramway companies working metro- 
 politan lines give services as fi-erpieiit, fast, cheap, and comfort- 
 able as the Council's ; and if llieli- men work longer hours they
 
 01 
 
 receive higher pay. An ofiQeial return comparing liours and 
 wages on tlie Council's lines and those of the North Metropolitan 
 Company shows that the Council's drivers and conductors get 
 37s. 8d. a week for GO lioirs (7.U1. an hour), the company's men 
 get 41s. lOd. for 70 hours (74d. an hour) ; the lower grade men 
 (track cleaners, washei's, &c.) not only earn more from the com- 
 j)any, ))ut are paid at a higher rate. Tlie mean difference in all 
 grades is only Jd. an hour in favour of tlie Council. An insight 
 into the way the electrification is carried out and into the 
 general conduct of the business is afforded by the case of the 
 generating station at Greenwich erected to work the south- 
 eastern lines. The reader will remember that the authorities of 
 (4reenwich Observatory complained of disturbance and inter- 
 ference with their important work by gases from the chimneys, 
 wiiich are 250ft. high, and by oscillations caused ))y tlie engines. 
 The County Council replied by refusing to acknowledge any 
 r«'si)()iisil)ility, being evidently unaware that their own Act 
 autluvi'izing the station contains a clause exi5ressl.v providing for 
 this \evy point and empowering the Board of Trade to make 
 regulations to prevent intei'ference with the Observatory. 
 Eventually the matter was submitted to a Parliamentary com- 
 mittee for inquiry ; and it a])])ears from their report recently 
 issued that («) the engines, which are reciprocating, might per- 
 fectly well have been so constructed as to cause no perceptible 
 oscillation of the ground, but lui trouble was taken on this point, 
 and the defect cannot now be even ])artially remedied except at 
 a cost of £10,800 ; (b) the two chimneys already constructed 
 have been built 33ft. higher than was necessary and they can be 
 reduced at a cost of £1,900, two others which were going to be 
 built to the same unnecessary height can be kept lower. As a 
 complement to these costly blundei-s it may be added that accord- 
 ing to Elect rical KiuihiccrUifi the generating plant is not up-to- 
 date. If the rest of the undertaking has been carried out with 
 the carelessness and extravagance thus accidentally revealed in 
 a single case, there is no need to look further for an explanation 
 of the financial failure. 
 
 The importance of the subject goes far beyond these sordid 
 and tedious details ; the whole question of London traffic is 
 bound up with it. Iinj:)roved means of locomotion are the 
 greatest needs of the metropolis to-day. It is getting them by 
 degrees, mainly through private enterprise. Tramways are one 
 means, a good and useful means in suitable places, but only one 
 out of many. They happ(>n, however, to have been the one 
 means within the power of the Council, and it has gone crazy 
 about them, or rather the Progressive party has. To them tram- 
 ways are the only means, and they oppose all others. This is a 
 fatal policy. What London wants is every kind of public loc(v 
 motion, suited to the widely varying conditions in ditTerent 
 parts ; and it wants them co-ordinated. If the County Council
 
 liad shown an open mind, a true I'egard for pul)lie needs, and had 
 conducted its own enterprises with i>rudence and success, it 
 would have had a strong claim to be entrusted with the task of 
 co-ordination and general control. But with such a record as 
 it has, who can trust it ? It has displayed a consistent jealousy 
 and dislike of every improvement Init its own tramways ; it lias 
 declined to co-oi)erate with any other enterprises in the way in 
 which the United Electric Tramways, the new tube, and the 
 District Railway have recently co-operated in a scheme for 
 grouping fares and using through tickets, or even as the tubes 
 and other i*ailways have co-operated by communication between 
 contiguous stations. It opposes tlie formation of a Traffic 
 Board, as recommended by the Roj^al Commission. In fact 
 it will allow nothing and nobody to live but itself, and it 
 identifies the public welfare with its own aggrandisement. That 
 is the Progressive policy. " We are the men," they cry, 
 " and wisdom will die with us." And the fruits of wisdom they 
 have to show as masters of locomotion are tramways without 
 profits and steamboats with heavy loss. About the last fiasco 
 little need be said ; it is too notorious. Mr. John Burns has 
 recently said tliat he more than any man is responsible for them, 
 and that he is pi'oud of them. True, no doubt, but not very con- 
 vincing ; for Mr. Burns is proud of everything he does. It must be 
 very pleasant to feel that you have never committed a mistake in 
 your life, and that all your motives are noble and all your actions 
 wise ; but somehow results carrj' more weight with other 
 jieople. For my part I go by the I'ecord. I have no objection to 
 municipal trams or steamboats ; on the contrar.y, I am convinced 
 that lioth might be made highly successful. But the recoi'd of 
 the Progressive Council is one of failure ; failure due to 
 incapacity, which generally accompanies abnormal self-esteem. 
 I have paid a good deal of attention to the question of steam- 
 boats, and, if it were worth while, could point out the blunders 
 committed under the inspiration of Mr. Burns, which made 
 snecess impossible. They were pointed out beforehand, but in 
 vain. His pride in them does not make them less or alter the 
 result, which is failure. 
 
 The Wduks Department. 
 A few words must suRice for tiie other braiidi of municipal 
 trading iindci'takon by the Council. Tiie Works DejiartiiuMit was 
 estalilished in 1892 for the direct employment of labour and the 
 performance by the Council of its own work. The late Lord 
 Farrer, who was then a member of tlio Council, pointetl out in a 
 memorandum tiiat it had been driven into tliis course " not only 
 ]»y a priori considerations of expediency or by Socialist tlieories 
 of municipal action, but by its own previous dealings with con- 
 tract<irs' wages, which had made it impossible for contractors to 
 tender except at an excirbifaut ])rice." Iteference has already
 
 63 
 
 l)oon made above to the unliappy I'esnlt of the experiment, which 
 was carried on in the usual reckless fashion. In 189G, after four 
 years' working, it was discovered by the comptroller (accountant) 
 tliat a system of falsifying the accounts had been carried on, by 
 whicli sums which sliouid liave been charged to certain works 
 were transferred to otiiers. Tlie ol)ject was to jiiake the results 
 appear more favourable than they actually were ; those respon- 
 sible for it had been driven to this device by the failure of the 
 department to answer expectations. They had in fact acted up 
 to the Progressive principle that the end justifies the means, and 
 h.id practised a little manipulation of figures, by which no one 
 was robbed, to serve the good cause. Naturally this conduct was 
 regarded as rather meritorious than otherwise in certain 
 ((uarters, and if it had ha])))ened more recently the manager 
 would proba))ly have had a rise of salary. But at that time the 
 progressives were not strong, and the public chose to regard the 
 thing as a scandal ; so the manager, poor man, was dismissed and 
 a dill'erent system was adopted. Contractors were readmitted by 
 a modification of the labour clanses ; the Works Committee was 
 abolished, but the department remained under the financial 
 control of the Finance Committee, and with the manager in the 
 position of contractor to the several committees which wanted 
 work done. In 1902 a Works Committee was again established 
 and has carried on the Works Dej^artment ever since. It consists 
 entirely of Pi'ogressive members ; it had, in 1905, a staff of about 
 70 and employed between 3,000 aiul 4,000 men. Its operations 
 appear to grow from year to year, but there is the same difliculty 
 in stating details as in other transactions of the Council. The 
 same accounts appear to be differently stated in different returns. 
 The following table is given in Mr. Holt Schooling's book on 
 " London County Council Finance," which ought to be studied 
 by every London ratepayer : — 
 
 Year ended 
 31st March. 
 
 1894-1895 
 
 189:) ... 
 
 1897 ... 
 
 1898 ... 
 
 1899 ... 
 
 1900 ... 
 
 1901 ... 
 190l> ... 
 
 1903 ... 
 
 1904 ... 
 
 1905 ... 
 190(5 ... 
 
 Final 
 estimates. 
 
 " £ ~ 
 175,733 
 207,800 
 
 70,233 
 200,174 
 154,432 
 204,722 
 137.072 
 22(5,778 
 ()95.51() 
 344,195 
 203,147 
 (•)03,343 
 
 I Actual cost I Actual cost I Actual cost 
 of 'more than tinal less than tinal 
 
 works. , estimates. estimates. 
 
 £ 
 
 178,454 
 199,189 
 85,254 
 21(5,915 
 180,043 
 224,084 
 136.802 
 233,979 
 732,(531 
 312,581 
 18'5,924 
 522,9jo 
 
 £ 
 2,721 
 
 9,021 
 1(5,741 
 25,(511 
 19,362 
 
 7.201 
 37,115 
 
 Total 
 
 3.229.151 3.209.822 117,772 
 
 £ 
 8,617 
 
 270 
 
 31,614 
 16,223 
 
 80,377 
 
 137.101 
 117,772 
 
 19,329
 
 64 
 
 This sllo^Ys the amount of work executed from year to year and 
 the difference between estimated and actual cost. On the whole 
 period the actual cost is less than the estimated by ,£19,329 on a 
 total of considerably over three millions. That is no great matter 
 for congratulation ; but it will be observed that there are two 
 series of years, in one of which the actual exceeds the estimated 
 cost almost every year, while in the other series the opposite 
 obtains. The unfavourable results occurred when the Works 
 Department was an open concern under the supervision of the 
 Finance Committee ; the favoiirable ones since it has been a 
 closed concern under the exclusively Progressive Woi'ks Com- 
 mittee. During the last three years the uniformity with which 
 the cost has been brought below the estimates to an aggregate 
 amount of £'128,214 is remarkable. This is represented as a 
 " saving " to the ratepayers ; but, of course, tlie fxuestion is not 
 whether the Council has executed works at a less cost than its 
 own estimate, but whether it has executed them at a less cost 
 than contractors woxxld have done. And of that there is no 
 evidence whatever. The claim is a iiure assiunption, as may be 
 seen if the argument is turned romid and a saving claimed when- 
 ever a contractor's tender is less than the estimate, wliicli has 
 often happened. In fact this sort of " saving " far exceeds that 
 of the Works Department. In 1904, for instance, tenders were 
 accepted for the following large smns below tlie estimate — in one 
 case £122,503, in another £34,490, in a third £10,442,and a fourth 
 £29,227. These and many others ouglit to be classed as 
 " savings " effected by the contract system. It is evident that 
 until the transactions of the Works Department are controlled 
 by open competition with contractors no one can say what the 
 i"esults really are. To claim success for it as it stands is merely 
 liumbugging the public. Its disadvantages as a political machine 
 employing thoiisands of men who look to certain Progressive 
 members as their patrons are obvious ; a situation more likely to 
 lead to coi'ruption cannot be imagined.
 
 March 4, 1907. 
 
 THE ELECTION. 
 
 The triennial election of 118 councilloi's lor the 58 con- 
 stituencies representinj^- tiie London County Council took place on 
 Saturday, Mai'ch 2, 11)07, and resulted in anoverwhelniinfi; victo)'y 
 lor the Municipal Rel'oriners. Since tlie formation of tlie Council 
 18 years aj^o tliis is the first time such a result has Ijeen achieved. 
 
 Tlie outfjoiii};;- Council, when elected in 1904, consisted of 83 
 J'rof^ressives, 34 Moderates, and one Independent. Several l)y- 
 elections have taken place, but they have not altered the balance 
 of parties, except in the case of Fulliam, where a Moderate was 
 elected in the place of a I'rogressive. The position has now 
 been almost reversed, as the new Council will consist of 79 
 Municipal Keformers, 38 Proiiressives, and one Independent. 
 Tiiis is exclusive of the nine aldermen who are to be elected by 
 tlie Council and will in due time add to the Reformers' forces. 
 
 T'revious Councils having been elected by a minority of voters, 
 mainly through apathy and indifference, strong- appeals were 
 made on both sides that voters should exercise their franchise, 
 and the result has been a large increase in the total voting. 
 Nearlj- half a million persons went to the poll, and as each had two 
 votes, and in the City four, the result was that the Municipal 
 Reformers received roughly about 527,000 A'otes, the I'rogressives 
 392,000, the Socialists just over 4,500, and the Independents 
 4,900. The total number of persons registered as entitled to vote 
 was 840,730, but this included plural registrations, the number of 
 which it is impossible to state. The average of persons voting 
 exceeded 52 per cent., and in some cases more than 70 per cent, 
 went to tlie poll (Battersea, for instance, was 72 per cent.). All 
 the outlying divisions, without an exception, such as Hami)- 
 stead, North Islington, and North Hackney in the north. 
 Hammersmith, Chelsea, Fulhaui, Raddington, Kensington, and 
 Marylebone in the west, Dulwich, Wandsworth, Clai)hain, Brix- 
 ton, Norwood, and Lewisham in the south, and Bow and Bromley 
 in the east, went solid for the Municipal Reformers. In all 
 these constituencies the middle class vote told heavily against 
 the Progressives. The industrial divisions of Greenwich and 
 Woolwich went the same way, whilst their sister division l)e])t- 
 lord was retained by Mr. Sidney Webb and his Progressive 
 colleague by narrow majorities. 
 
 The feature of the election was the higher vote recorded for 
 the Municipal Reformers in nearly every division. Such strong 
 Moderate strongholds as the City of London, Holborn. St. 
 George's, Hanover-scpiare, South Kensington, the Strand. Wesf- 
 minster, and Wandsworth showed greatly increased majorities, 
 while the I'rogressive strongholds such as Newington, Walworth, 
 the two divisions of Bethnal-green, South Hackney, Keiuiiugton, 
 
 5
 
 6f> 
 
 J^oplar, Kotlierhitlie, and West Soutliwark were kept intact by 
 substautially decreased majorities. The highest individual vote 
 by a Municipal Heformer was in Wandsworth, with a total of 
 15,700, and the highest Progressive winner w^as in Battersea,with 
 7,250, Mr. Burns's seat in Battersea has been lilled by a 
 Municipal Keformer, and the late leader of the ProgressiA'e 
 party, Mr. McKinnon AVood, who retired owing to his Parlia- 
 mentary duties, has l)een succeeded in Central Hackney bj- a 
 Municipal Reformer. Among the Progressives who were beaten 
 were Lord Monkswell at Haggerston, the Hon. Neil Primrose in 
 Lewisham, Lord Craven in St. George's, Hanover-square, and 
 the following members of Parliament : — Mr. Cleland in 
 Lewisham, Mr. W. H. Dickinson in the City, Mr. G. A. Hardy 
 in Dulwich, and Mr. Hjorniman in Clielsea. 
 
 On the whole, the Municipal Reformers won 46 seats and lost 
 two, making a net gain of 44 seats. The Socialists, ninning 
 avowedly as such, fared very badly, receiving comparatively 
 little support, and the Independent Labour party did no better. 
 Tlie Progressives declare that their defeat is due to a combina- 
 tion of adverse circumstances, and that their opponents are tlie 
 tools of some great trust ; on the other hand, the Municipal 
 . Reformers state that their victory has been brought about by 
 the revolt of the tradesman and middle class against 
 municipal trading and Socialism, and that their wins in the East- 
 end and elsewhere prove that tlie working classes have assisted 
 in bringing about this consummation. 
 
 The following are the figures of Saturday's election. The 
 party connexion of the candidates is indicated thus — (M.R.) 
 Municipal Reformer, (P.) Progressive, (I.) Lidependent, (S.) 
 Socialist, (S.D.) Social Democrat, (L.) Laboiir, (P. and L.) Pro- 
 gressive and Labour, (R.C.) Roman Catholic. An asterisk indi- 
 cates a member of the outgoing Council : — 
 
 BATTERSEA AND CLAPHAM (BATTERSEA) (l>'i.01 1 iOloctois). 
 
 *Mr. W. Davies (P.) 7,250 Mr. W. 11. Uumithirys (S.).... 480 
 
 Mr. A. SHIHbKY Benn (M.R.) 7,'217 :\Ir. J. Fitzseiald (S.) ... OS 
 
 Mr. E, Evan.s (.Vl.R.) ... (j,(i!»l .M r. 1 1. .laiiseii-Noumaim (S.) ri 
 
 Mr. J. West (P.) G,(J()0 
 
 One M.R. gaiu. i\Iajoiity, .j2(). 
 At the hist ek'ciion, in 1904, the flguros were :— Air. .1. linnis, M.l'. 
 (P.), r>,'yr.i ; xMr. W. Davies (P.), r^,W2 ; Mr. V. D. Thomas (C. and V.}, 
 2,.")0:i. The division in the previous ok'ctions was re]iresentcd by Pro- 
 gressives. 
 
 BATTERSEA AND CLAPIJA.VI (CLAPJIAAI) (28,07(0. 
 
 .Mr. T. W. DoMONEV (M.R.) 10,200 Mr. A. tilegg (P.) 7,:i20 
 
 SniC. Kini,ocu-Cuoke(M.R.) l(l,l.')S .Mr. ,]. (i. Kipling (I'.) ... 7,27('. 
 No thiuige. iMajoiity, 2,880. 
 Ill l!)0l llie figures were : — Lieutenant-Colonel R()(lon(C. and U.), .'),!)10 ; 
 .Mr. T. Penn (iaskell (C. and U.), 5,704 ; Mr. J. G. Kipling (P.), 5,544 ; 
 -Mr. E. C. Pannett (P.), 5,408. At the previous elections the division re- 
 turned Moderates, e.\ce|)l in 18i>2, M-hen it was rejiresented ))y two Pro- 
 gressives,
 
 (17 
 
 BETHNAL-GREEN (NORTH-EAST) (11,0.27). 
 
 *SlR E. ClouNWALL, M.P. (P.) 3,877 Mr. R. A. Robinson (M.K.) ... 1,018 
 
 *Mr. E. Smith (P.) ... ' ... 3,776 Mr. L. H. Lemon (.M.R.) ... 1,!>07 
 
 No change. JNIajority, 1,959. 
 
 Ill 1901 (he ligiiies were :— Mr. 10. Smith (P.), 3,2().5 ; :\lr. li. A. Coniwiill 
 (P.), 3,-2.-)l ; Dr. iMcCiae (C. and U.), 1,211 ; Mr. Slorry Ueans (C. and U.) 
 J, 11)3. 
 
 BETHNAL-GREEN' (SOUTH-WEST) (9,708). 
 HKV.STKWAirr liKADi-AiM(P.) 2,99.5 Mr. F. Brinsloy-lIari)er 
 
 Mr. Pkiky A. Harris (P.) 2,7(12 (M.U.) I,(i43 
 
 Mr. K. Scbag-Monteliorc Mr, J. 1 1, llarley (L.) ... 512 
 
 (M.R.) 1,771 
 
 No change. Majority, 1,221. 
 
 In 1901 the figures were :— :Mr. J. Branch (P.), 2,490 ; Mr. T, Wiles (P.), 
 2,458; Mr. J. H. Keeling (M.), 955 ; Mr. A. Maconachie (M.), 955. The 
 division returned Progressives in the previous elections. 
 
 CAMBER\VELL (DULWICH) (16,864). 
 Mr. 11. C. GoocH (M.R.) ... 6,689 *.Mr. G. A. Hardy, M.P. (P.) 5,020 
 
 Mr. K. H.VLL (M.R.) 6,641 Mr. A. Cohn (P.) 4,844 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 1,669. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. G. A. Hardy (P.), 4,347 ; Mr. T. Gautrey 
 (P.), 4,275; Mr. W. L. Mitchell (M.), 3,548; Mr. H. C. GooohfM.), 
 3,5'U. In 1901 the representation was divided, and in all the other elections 
 Moderates were returned. 
 
 CAMBERWELL (NORTH) (18,204). 
 
 *Mr. II. Bray (P.) 5,449 Mr. A. Campbell (M.R.) ... 3,.')45 
 
 *Mr. II. R.Taylor (P.) ...5,365 Mr. W. Edmonds (M-lv.) ...3,172 
 No change. Majority, 1,904. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. H. R. Taylor (P.), 3,670; Mr. R. Rray 
 (P.), 3,.j(i3 ; Mr. T. C. L. Miller (L), i,229. At previous elections the 
 division returned Progressives. 
 
 aiMBERWELL (PECKllAM) (18,.-)38). 
 
 *Mr. T. Gautuey (P.) ...1,659 Mr. R. Steven (P.) I,2(i2 
 
 Mr. W. L. DowNTON (M.R.) 4,426 Mr. W. T. Kelly (L.) 199 
 
 Mr. U. C. Preston (M.R.) 4,379 
 
 One M.R. gain. Majority, 164. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. C. G. Clarke (P.), 3,935 ; Mr. F. W. 
 Verney (P.), 3,871 ; Mr. J. Somorville (.\I.), 1,759 ; Sir F. Fleming, 
 1,666. At tho previous elections the division returned Progressives. 
 
 CHELSEA (16,802). 
 
 Mr. T.C.E. GOFF (M.R.) ... 5,877 *Mr. J. Jeftery (P.) 3,915 
 
 Mr. R. C. Norman (M.R.) ... 5,779 
 *Mr. E. J. Iloraiman, 
 
 M.P. (P.) 3,977 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majori(y, 1,900. 
 
 In 1901 the figures were :— Mr. J. Jeffery (P.), 4,224; .Mr. E. J. 
 Horniman (P.), 4,143 ; Major-Goncral Sartorius (M.), 3,471 ; Mr. C. Goff 
 (M.), 3,462. In 1901 and 1898 two Progressives were returned, in 1895 (he 
 representation wius divided, and in the otlier elections two Progressives 
 were elected.
 
 (58 
 
 CITY OF LONDON (25,784). 
 Mr. Aldermak Hanson Mr. C. R. Buxton (P.) ... 1,768 
 
 (M.R.) 7,603 Mr. F. Debenham (P.) ... 1,766 
 
 Mr. N. L. Cohen (M.R.) ... 7,519 ]srr. G. S. Warmington (P.) ... 1,719 
 
 Mr. W. H. Pan-nell (M.R.)... 7,484 *Mr. W. H. Dickinson, 
 
 *Mr. H. Stuart Sankey M.P. (P.) 1,646 
 
 (M.R.) 7,451 
 
 No change. Majority, 5,835. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. Aldeiiuan AUiston (M,), 4,907 ; Sir T. 
 Brooke-Hitching (M.), 4,858 ; the Hon. R. Guinness (M.), 4,799 ; Mr. 
 H. S. Sankey (M.), 4,606 ; Mr. F. W. Buxton (P.), 2,342 ; Lord Sandhurst 
 (P.), 2,298. ^It. Dickinson was an Alderman in the last Coiuicil. 
 
 DEPTFORD (21,549). 
 *Mr. Sidney Webb (P.) ... 6,185 Mr. W. F. Barrett (M.R.) ... 5,899 
 *Mr. R. C. Phillimoke (P.) 6,083 Mr. R. R. Fairbairn (L) ... 182 
 Mr. II. G. Wells (M.R.) 5,979 
 
 No change. ^lajority, 206. 
 In 1904 Mr. \Vebb and Mr. Phillimore were returned miopiiosed. In 1901, 
 1898, and 1892 two Progressives were elected, and in 1895 and 1889 one 
 Moderate and one Progressive. 
 
 FINSBURY (CENTRAL) (9,733). 
 *Cait. the Hon. F. Hemp- *Capt. G. S. C. Swlnton 
 
 HILL (P.) 2,806 (M.R.) 
 
 *Mr. A. B. Russell (P.) ... 2,791 Mr. M. Cbipman (M.R.) 
 No change. Majority, 283. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Capt. F. Hemphill (P.), 2,361 ; 
 Russell (P.), 2,338 ; the Rev. R. F. Hosken (M.), 1,935 ; Mr. 
 Wayne (M.), 1,914. In 1901 two Progressives were elected, in 1898 two 
 Moderates, and at the three previous elections two Progressives. Captain 
 Swintou represented Holborn in the last Coimcil. 
 
 FINSBURY (EAST) (6,687). 
 Col. a. C. Welby (M.R.) ... 2,024 *Mr. T. E. Harvey (P.) ... 1,988 
 Mr. E. Howes (M.R.) ... 2,014 Mr. F. A. Harrison (P.) ... 1,98^ 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 36. 
 In 1904 the figiu-es were :— Mr. J. A. Baker (P.), 2,336 ; Mr. T. E. 
 Harvey (P.), 2,190 ; Mr. E. Howes (M.), 1,772 ; Mr. W. Smith (M.), 
 1,618. At the previous elections two Progressives were returned. 
 
 FINSBURY (HOLBORN) (12,396). 
 Mr. Iv K. Wild ( .\LR.) ... 4,.524 Mr. II. Diysdale Woodcock 
 
 Hon. II. LvuuN (M.R.) ... 1,030 (P.) 1,629 
 
 No change. Majority, 2,895. 
 Ill 1904 the figures were :— Sir H. \V. Bliss (M.), 2,670; Cai)t. Swintou 
 (.M.), 2,649 ; Mr. W. H. Ansell (P.), 1,241 ; Mr. A. Goodes (P.), 1,169. 
 At ail the previous elections Moderates were elected, excej)t in 1889, 
 when the representation was divided, 
 
 FITLIIA.M (26,109). 
 
 *.Mr. C. Cobb (.M.R.) 8,413 Mr. J. Stephenson (L.) ...3,139 
 
 Mr. K. G. Kaston (M.R.) ... S,30] .Mr. T. !{. Wall (S.D.) ... 773 
 
 Mr. W. Lloyd Taylor (I'.) 1,771 
 
 One M.R. gain. Majority, 3,639. 
 Ill l!i()l Ihc nmiihers were :— Mr. P. Lawson (P.), 6,207 ; .Mr. T. Davies 
 (P.), 6,179 ; .Major Skinner (M.), 5,247 ; Lord Lytton (.M.), 5,157. At 
 the previfnis elections Progressives Avere returned in 190], 1895, and 1892 ; 
 in 1H!J8 (wo Modeiat<-s were elected, and in 1889 one ot each party. 
 
 
 2, 
 
 ,508 
 
 
 2 
 
 ,507 
 
 Mr 
 
 .A 
 
 . B. 
 
 F. 
 
 H. 
 
 M.
 
 OREICNWICIl (l.->,987). 
 
 Mr. I. II. Benn (M.H.) ... (>,2I7 Mr. D. McCall (P.) 3,727 
 
 Lord Alexander Thynnr Rev. J. Wilson (P.) '.i,^ib 
 
 (M.R.) ... ■ 5,991 
 
 Two M.K. gains. Afajority, 2,490, 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. R. S. Jackson (P.) and Mr. F. \V. 
 Warmington (P.) luiopposed. The division hfus elected Progressives at 
 every i)revious election except in 1895, when two Moderates were 
 returned. 
 
 HACKNEY (CP:NTRAL) (12,809). 
 
 Mr. W. B. Stewart (M.R.) 3,722 *Mr. A. J. Shepheard (P.) ... 3,,5.58 
 
 Mr. G. Billings (M.R.) ... 3,659 Mr. K. C. Fairchild (S.D.)... 296 
 
 *Mr. W. B. Yates (P.) ... 3,559 ^Slr. F. V. Fisher (S.D.) ... 2.57 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 163. 
 
 Tn 1904 the figures were :— Mr. T. McKimion Wood (P.), 3,-534 ; Mr. 
 A. J. Shepheard (P.), 3,476; Lord Bingham (M.), 2,120 ; Mr. G. Cart- 
 wright (M.), 2,097. With the exception of the 1889 election, when two 
 Moderates were returned, the division has always elected Progressives. 
 
 HACKNEY (NORTH) (16,990). 
 Mr. W. H. Key (M.R.) ...6,205 *Mr. G. Lampard (P.) ...4,617 
 Mr. R. Greene (M.R.) ... 6,1.53 Mr. Price (P.) 4,5:i0 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 1,588. 
 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. G. Lampard (P.), 4,372 ; IMr. J. E. 
 Sears (P.), 4,189 ; Mr. F. M. Miller (M.), 3,973 ; Mr. W. H. Key (M.). 
 3,942. In 190] two Progressives were elected, in 1898 one Moderate and 
 one Progressive, in 1895 two Moderates, and in 1892 and 1889 one of each 
 party. 
 
 HACKNEY (SOUTH) (18,114). 
 
 Mr. T. Chapman (P.) ... .5,225 Mr. C. Winkley (M.R.) ... 3,325 
 
 .\rr. W. A. Casson (P.) ... 5,138 Mr. G. Naylor (M.R.) ... 3,285 
 
 No change. Majority, 1,900. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. E. Browne (P.), 4,318 ; Mr. A. Smith 
 (P.), 4,316 ; Mr. S. Boulter (M.), 1,776 ; Lieutenant-Colonel Craig (M.), 
 1,767. The division returned Progressives at all the previous elections. 
 
 HAMMERSMITH (17,949). 
 
 *Mr. J. Brandon (M.R.) ... 5,8.50 Mr. L. E. Camp (P.) 2,709 
 
 *Mr. E. Collins (M.R.) ... 5,839 Dr. W. T. Davidson (I,.j ... 897 
 Mr. N. Shairp (P.) ... 2,7.55 Mr. J. T. Westcott (L.) ... 737 
 No change. ^lajority, 3,095. 
 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. J. Brandon (M.), 3,501 ; >rr. E. Collins 
 (M.), 3,494; Mr. J. G. Ritchie (P.), 3,483; Mr. F. Whelen (P.), 3,392. 
 The division has always returned Modei-ates. 
 
 H.\MPSTEAD (15,012). 
 
 *Mr. J. T. Taylor (M.R.) ... 5,.577 Mr, G. L. Bruce (P.) 2,894 
 
 Mr. W. Reynolds (M.R.) ... 5,.508 Mr. C. A. McCurdy (P.) ... 2,878 
 No change. Majority, 2,683. 
 
 Tn 1904 the figures were :— Mr. N. Hanhart (M.), 3,2.52 ; Mr. J. T. Taylor 
 (M.), 3,213 ; Mr, W, E, Mullins (P,), 2,893 ; Mr. C. H. Smith (P.), 2,737. 
 In 1901 the division elected one of each party, and at the previous elec- 
 tions Moderates were returned.
 
 70 
 
 TSLIXGTON (EAST) (15,591). 
 Mr. C, A. ^r. Barlow (M.R.) 4,430 Mr. E. Smallwood (P.) ... 4,292 
 -Mr. P. E. PiLDiTCH (.M.R.) 4,402 *Mr. A. A. Thomas (P.) ... 4,257 
 Two JM.R. gains. Majority, 138. 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. A. M. Torrance (P.), 4,413 ; Mr. A. A. 
 Thomas (P.), 3,914 ; ^klr. A. H. Csesar (M.), 2,416. At the previous elec- 
 tions the division elected Progressives except in 1889, when one Pro- 
 gressive and one Moderate were returned. 
 
 ISLINGTON (NORTH) (16,977). 
 Mr. F. L. Dove (M.R.) ... 4,924 Mr. H. G. Chancellor (P.) 4,192 
 Mr: C. K. Ml'RCHISON (M.R.) 4,797 Mr. J. C. Clutterbuck (I.) ... 364 
 ^[r. H. J. Glanville (P.) 4,200 
 
 Two M.R. gains, ^[ajority, 724. 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Dr. T. B. Napier (P.), 3,876 ; Mr. W. C. 
 Parkinson (P.), 3,858 ; Alderman Tomkins (M.), 2,811 ; Mr. .1. W. Sharp 
 (M.), 2,771. At all the previous elections the Progressives were successful. 
 
 ISLINGTON (SOUTH) (11,602). 
 
 *Mr. G. Dew (L.) 2,996 Mr. C. Moffatt (M.R.) ... 2,076 
 
 *Mr. HowEfj. J. Williams Mr. G. S. Elliott (f.) 854 
 
 (P-) 2.929 Mr. E. J. James (1.) 179 
 
 Mr. S. Lambert (M.R.) ... 2,217 
 
 No change. Majority, 779. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. H. J. Williams (P.), 2,536 ; Mr. G. 
 Dew (L.), 2,437; Mr. G. S. Elliott (I.), 1,770 ; :\Ir. S. Lambert (I.), 
 1,.526 ; Mr. A. Memory (LP.), 356. In 1901 a Progressive and a Moderate 
 (^Ir. G. S. Elliott) were elected ; in 1898 a Progressive and an Indepen- 
 dent Progressive (Mr. G. S. Elliott), and at the previous three elections 
 two Progressives. 
 
 ISLINGTON (WEST) (10,142). 
 Mr. H. J. Clarke (M.R.) ... 3,300 Mr. R. C. Lambert (P.) ... 2,933 
 Mr. J. Salmox (M.R.) ... 3,226 :\Ir. A. J. :\Iiuidella (P.) ... 2,900 
 
 Two M.R. gains. ^Majority, 367. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :—:\[r. W. Goodman (P.), 2,904 ; :\rr. G. H. 
 Radford (P.), 2,874; Mr. A. J. Adams (M.), 1,705 ; Mr. II. . I. Clarke 
 (.\l.), 1,695. In 1901, 1898, and 1895 two Progressives were returned, and 
 at the previous elections one of each party. 
 
 KENSINGTON (NORTH) (14,770). 
 
 Mr. D. Davis (.\1.R.) 4,418 *.\Ir. H. L. Jephson (P.) ...3.181 
 
 Major C. L. A. Skinner *Mr. W. Pope (P.) 3.170 
 
 (M.R.) 4,382 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 1,237. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. W. Pope (P.), 3,232; :\Ir. II. L. 
 .lephson (P.), 3,203 ; Mr. W. W. Thompson (.\[.), 2,914 ; Baron P<>rcy de 
 Worms (M.), 2,858. In 1901 two Progressives were elected ; in 1898 and 
 1895 two Moderates, and at the previous elections two Progressives. 
 
 KENSINGTON (SOUTH) (14,539). 
 *Mr. R. A. RoniNsoN (M.R.) 5,869 .Mr. V. R. Aronson (P.) ... 788 
 ♦Dr. E. B. Fokman (Alder- The Hon. W. James (P.) ... 770 
 
 man) (M.R.) 5,834 
 
 No change. Majority, 5,081. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. R. A. Robinson (M.), 3,.538 ; the Hon. 
 F. J. N. Thesiger (M.), 3,519 ; Mr. P. Carr (P.), 682 ; Mr. H. J. Norton 
 (I'.), r.(;(l, Tlic division returned Moderates at all the previous elections.
 
 71 
 
 I^\^mETll (IJIlIXTOiV) (13,021). 
 
 Mr. W. Haydon (M.R.) ...4,097 *Mr. L. Sharp (P.) 3, .'54(5 
 
 Mr. S. G. l[o.\RE (M.R.) ... 4,928 Mr. L. Earle, CJ.M.G. fP.) ... 3,.')2.'-> 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 1,-i^A. 
 In 1904 llio numbers were :— Mr. F. Uolinan (P.), 3,170 ; Mr. L. Sliarp 
 (P.), 3,120; Mr. VV. llaydon (M.), 2,922 ; Mr. S. Cres.swell (.M.), 2,911. 
 In 1901 two Progressives were elected, in 1898 and 1895 two Moderates, 
 ■ ind in the two previous elections two Progressives. 
 
 LAMBETH (KENNINGTON) (11,842). 
 *SiR J. W. Benn, xM.P. (P.)... 3,424 Sir W. Porter (M.R.) ... 2,6G6 
 
 The Rev. E. Denny (P.) ... 3,326 Mr. J. G. Butler (S.D.) ... 281 
 
 Mr. J. F. Budge(M.R.) ... 2,718 Mr. Knee (S.D.) 23.5 
 
 No change. Majority, 706. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. S. Collins (P.), 3,394 ; Mr. J. W. Benn 
 (P.), 3,388 ; Cnnon Allen Edwards (M.), 2,460. At the previous elections 
 two Progressives were returned, except in 1895 and 1889, -when the repre- 
 sentation was divided. 
 
 LAMBETH (NORTH) (8,237). 
 
 *Mr. F. Briant (P.) 2,.360 *xMr. Jabez Williams (^tf.R.)... 2,080 
 
 Mr. F. Smith (P.) 2,249 Mr. G. Hinds (M.R.) 2,077 
 
 One P. gain. Majority, 280. 
 Tn 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. VV. Wightman (P.), 1,180 ; IMr. J. 
 Williams (M.), 1,152 ; Mr. A. Brooks (M.), 1,103 ; Mr. J. G. Gregoiy (P.), 
 1,028 ; Mr. W. E. Cleiy (LP.), 422 ; Mr. J. Clark (LP.), 419 ; Mr. W. H. 
 Lock (LP.), 265. At all the previous elections Progressives were returned, 
 except in 1899, when two Moderates were chosen. 
 
 LAMBETH (NORWOOD) (16,278). 
 Mr. C. U. Fisher (M.R.) ... 6,585 *Mr. N. W. Hubbard (P.) ... 4,174 
 Mr. F. St. John Morrow *Mr. G. Shrubsall (P.) ... 4,120 
 
 (M.R.) 6,.539 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 2,411. 
 Li 1004 the numbers were :— Mr. N. W. Hubbard (P.), 4,328; Mr. G. 
 Shrubsall (P.), 4,223 ; Mr. E. Micholls (M.), 3,922 ; Mr. A. Chapman 
 (M.), 3,887. At the previous elections Progressives were returned, except 
 in 1898 and 1895, when ^Moderates were elected. 
 
 LEWISIIAM (28,217). 
 Lord Lewisham (:\1.R.) ... 11,028 The Hon. NeilPrimrose(P.)... 6,893 
 Mr. A. Pownall (M.R.) ...10,818 Mr. Gee (L.) 118 
 
 *Mr. J.W. Clelaud,M.P. (P.) 7,004 
 
 Two ]M.R. gains. Majority, 4,024. 
 
 The numbers in 1904 were :— *Mr. J. W. Cleland (P.), 6,297 ; the Hon. 
 A. Lyulph Stanley (P.), 5,046 ; Mr. .1. Vesey FitzGerald, K.C. (^L), 
 4,557; Mr. E. L. Hartley (M.), 4,446. In 1901 the representation was 
 divided ; in 1898 and 1805 two Moderates were returned, and 1802 and 1889 
 one Moderate and one Progressive. 
 
 MARYLEBONE (EAST) (9,411). 
 
 Lord DiNCANNON (M.R.) ... 3,612 Dr. J. F. Little (P.) 1,446 
 
 Mr. J. BOYTON (M.R.) ... 3,.562 Mr. F. Gill (P.) 467 
 
 No change. Majority, 1,166. 
 
 Li 1904 the numbers were :— Lord Ludlow (M.), 2,848; Mr. W. C. 
 
 Bridgeman (M.), 2,779; Dr. J. F. Little (P.), 1,762 ; Dr. W. Leaf (P.). 
 
 1,747. At the 1001 election Dr. Little and Dr. Leaf were returned as 
 
 Independents. At each of the j>revious elections .Moderates were elected.
 
 MARYLEBONE (WEST) (12,255). 
 
 Lord Hknky Bentinck *Mr. J. Lewis (P.) 2,434; 
 
 (-■^I-R-) 4,683 Dr. J. Searsoii (P.) 2,320 
 
 Lord Kerry (M.R.) ... 4,625 
 
 One M.R. gain. Majority, 2,249. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. J. Lewis (P.), 2,708 ; :Mr. W. Bailey 
 (.\L), 2,509 ; Mr. E. White (M.), 2,4.50 ; Mr. W. H. Sands (P.), 2,422. At 
 all the i)revious elections the division returned two Moderates. 
 
 NEWINGTON (WALWORTH) (11,046). 
 *Mr. J. A. Dawes (P.) ... 2,823 Mr. C. Sproule (M.R.) ... 2,235 
 
 *Mr. C. Jesson (P.) ... 2,819 Mr. J. Clarke (S.) 187 
 
 Dr. F. 01dfield(M.R.)... 2,3.37 
 
 No change. Majority, 486, 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. R. Spokes (P.), 2,484 ; the Rev. A. W. 
 .lephson (P.), 2,425 ; Mr. J. Youldon (M.), 1,754; Mr. F. J. P.Smith 
 (M.), 1,641. At each of the previous elections two Progressives were 
 returned. 
 
 NEWINGTON (WEST) (12,483). 
 *Mr. Evan Spicer (Alder- Mr. A. Waddell (M.R.) ...2,705 
 
 niiiiV) (i*-) 3,778 Mr. IT. Jarvis (M.R.) 2,700 
 
 *Mr. J. D. Gilbert (P.) ... 3,759 
 
 No chjinge. ^Majoritj', 1,073. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. J. Piggott (P.), 3,244; Mr. J. D. 
 Gilbert (P.), 3,029 ; Mr. W. Lansdale (M.), 1,380 ; Major C. Gibbings 
 (M.), 1,356. At each of the previous elections the division returned two 
 Progressives. 
 
 PADDINGTON (NORTH) (15,664). 
 
 The HON.W. Guinness (M.R.) 4,711 Mr. J. Fairbanks (P.) 3,607 
 
 -Mr. J. H. Hunter (M.R.) ... 4,597 Mr. G. C. Maberly (P.) ... 3,453 
 No change. Majority, 1,104. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Sir R. U. Beachcroft (M.), 3,.340 ; Mr. J. 
 Stevens (M.), 3,120 ; Mr. J. Blackwood (P.), 2,393 ; Mr. G. H. Turner 
 (P.), 2,172. At the 1901 election the representation was divided, and at 
 each of the previous contests two ^Moderates were returned. 
 
 PADDINGTON (SOUTH) (9,582). 
 *Sir R. M, Beachcroft Mr. J. S. Holmes (P.) ... 848 
 
 CSi.^-) :^,763 Mr. A. Y. :\layell (P.) ... 816 
 
 *.Mr. H. P. Harris (M.R.)... 3,709 
 
 No change. Majority, 2,915. 
 In 1904 the figures were :— Mr. H. A. Harben (M.), 2,608 ; Mr. H. P. 
 Harris (M.), 2,.589 ; Mr. J. Kennedy (P.), 970 ; Mr. D. Vaughan Owen (P.), 
 937. At each of the jirevious elections the division returned two Moderates. 
 
 ST, GEORGE'S, HANOVER-SQUARE (13,477). 
 
 Lord Chkvlksmork (M.R.) 5,445 Lord Craven (P.) 1,384 
 
 *.Mr. II.. 1.Gi(EKN\vood(M.R.) .5,375 Mr. T. E. Morris (P.) ... 1,348 
 
 No change. Majority, 4,061. 
 In 1904 the nimibers were: — Mr. H. .1. Greenwood (M.), 3,144 ; the 
 Hon. F, D, Leigh (M.), 3,113 ; Lord O'Hagan (P.), 1,911 ; Mr. R. (J, 
 Webster (P.), 1,8.52; Mr, S. Cojip (1.), 87. In each of the j.revious elec- 
 tions Ih"^ division returned two Moderates,
 
 73 
 
 ST. PANCRAS (EAST) (12,470). 
 ^h. A. W. Clarkmont (P.) 3,482 Mr. T. A. Organ (M.K.) ... 3,00.5 
 
 Tho Rkv.F. Hastings (P.) 3,410 Mr. G. Home (S.j 29.') 
 
 *Arr. E. Barnes (M.R.)... 3,181 
 
 One P. gain. IMajority, .301. 
 In 1S)04 the nnmbers were :— Mr. T. H. W. Idris (P.), 2,7.51 ; Mr. E. 
 Barnes (^f.), 2,731; Mr. D. ilennessy (P.), 2,.558. At the 1901 and the 
 1898 elections Progressives were returned, and at each of the jirevions 
 elections the representation was divided. 
 
 ST. PANCRAS (NORTH) (12,162). 
 *^rr. D. S. Watert.ow, M .P. Mr. E. J. King (M.R.) ... 3,.')26 
 
 (P.) 3,847 Lient.-Col.Pakenham(M.R.) 3,.'')01 
 
 *l)r. R. M. BKxVTOX (P.) ... 3,824 
 
 iS^o change. Majority 321. 
 
 Tn 1904 the numliers were :— Mr. R. I\r. Beaton, :M.B. (P.), 3,04.'> ; 
 ^Fr. D. S. Waterlow (P.), 3,023 ; Mr. W. Low (M.), 1,737 ; :\rr. H. B. 
 Betterton (M.), I,fi95. In 1901 and 1898 two Progressives were returned, 
 in 1895 and 1892 the representation was divided, and in 1889 two Progres- 
 sives were elected. 
 
 ST. PANCRAS (SOUTH) (7,972). 
 Mr. CiKORGK Alexander The Rev. Silvester Home (I*.) 1,013 
 
 (M.R.) 2,963 Mr. G. Giddens (P.) 1,583 
 
 *Mr. F. Goldsmith (M.R.) 2,897 
 
 No change. Majority, 1,350. 
 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Major H. Gastrell (M.), 1,927 ; Mr. F. 
 Goldsmith (M.), 1,808; Mr. Bernard Shaw (P.), 1,460 ; Sir W. N. Gearj- 
 (P.), 1,412. In 1901 two Progressives were returned, in 1898 and 1895 
 one Progressive and one Moderate, in 1892 two Progressives, and in 1889 
 one Progressive aad one Moderate. 
 
 ST. PANCRAS (WEST) (10,943). 
 
 Mr. P. VosPER (M.R.) ... 3,504 Mr. H. Cohen (P.) 2,481 
 
 Mr. F. Cassel, K.C. (M.R.) 3,471 Mr. J. C. S. Hanham (P.) ... 2,442 
 Two ,M.R. gains. Majority, 1,043. 
 In 1904 the nimibers were :— Sir \V. J. ' Collins (P.), 2,889 ; Lord 
 Carrington (P.), 2,769; Mr. A. F. Buxton (M.), 1,3.52; Dr. W.Smith 
 (M.), 1,341 ; Mr. G. H. Baker, 125. At each of the previous elections two 
 Progressives were returned, except the first, when the representation 
 was divided. 
 
 SHOREDITCH (HAGGERSTON) (10,933). 
 -TiiKHoN.RrPERT Guinness *Lord Monkswell (P.) ... 3,085 
 
 iM-K-) 3,307 Mr. Stephen Gee (P.) ... 3,026 
 
 TiiK Hon. ti. Johnstone 
 
 (M.R.) 3,131 
 
 Two M.R. gains. .Majority, 222. 
 J n 1904 the figures were :— Lord Monkswell (P.), 2,479; Mr. J. Stuart 
 (P.), 2,4.56; Major Stokoe (M.), 1,093 ; Mr. J. H. S. Lloyd (A[.), 1,030. 
 At each of the previous elections two Pi-ogressives were returned. 
 
 SHOREDITCH (HOXTON) (12,019). 
 
 Dr. J. Davies (M.R.) ... 3,272 *.Mr. H. Ward (P.) 3,112 
 
 Mr. E. (JRAY (Ar.R.) ... 3,226 *.\lr. Graham Wallas (!'.) ... 3,065 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 160. 
 Ill 1904 the numbei-s were :— Mr. II. Ward (P.), 2,436 ; Mr. Graham Wallas 
 (P.), 2,361; Dr. J. Davies (^I.), 2,281; ]Mr. E. Gates (M.), 2.124. At 
 each of the previous elections two Progressives werc_returned.
 
 74 
 
 SOTTTHWARK (BEK.MONDSEY) (15,648). 
 
 Dr. A. Salter (P.) 4,197 Mr. J. F. Vesey FitzGerald 
 
 *Mr. A. A. Allen (P.) ... 4,195 (M.R.) 3,474 
 
 Mr. J. K. Foster (M.R.) ... 3,389 
 
 No change. Majority, 723. 
 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Dr. G. J. Cooper (P.), 3,221; IMr. A. A. 
 
 Allen (P.), 3,215 ; Mr. T. H. Flood (M.), 2,153 ; Mr, F. R. Anderton (M.), 
 
 2,085. At each of the previous elections two Progressives were returned. 
 
 SOUTHWARK (ROTHERHITHE) (13,199). 
 *Mr. A. POMEROY (P.) ... 3,693 Mr. F. Fremantle (M.R.) ... 3,365 
 
 *Mr. H. J. Glanville (P.)... 3,663 Mr. F. E. Eddis (M.R.) ... 3,259 
 No change. jMajority, 328. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— ]\lr. A. Pomeroy (P.), 3,108; IMr. H.J. 
 Glanville (P.), 3,029 ; :\lr. .J. W. Oake (M.), 1,530 ; Mr. W. W, Tyler 
 (M.), 1,448 ; the Rev. \V. F. Brown (I.), 1,160. In 1901 and 1898 the 
 division returned two Progressives, in 1895 two ^foderates, and in 1892 and 
 1889 two Progressives. 
 
 SOUTHWARK (WEST) (10,726). 
 
 *:Mr. T. Hunter (P.) 2,998 Mr, J. T. Scriven (M.R.) ... 2,746 
 
 Mr. A, Wilson (P,). 2,953 Mr. F. Gillett (M.R.) ...2,649 
 
 No change. Majority, 252. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :—Mi: T, Hunter (P.),2,285 ; ^h: E. Bayley 
 (P.), 2,283 ; Mr. J. T. Scriven (M.), 1,550 ; Mr. E. M. Judge (M.), 1,547. 
 in each of the previous elections the division returned two Progressives, 
 except in 1892, Mhen one Labour and one Progressive were chosen. 
 
 STRAND (10,475). 
 *LiEUT.-CoL. PuoBVN (M.R.) 3,580 Mr. S. H. Lamb (P.) ... 903 
 
 *L0RD Elcho (iNI.R.) 3,558 Mr. W. H. Howell (P.) ... 895 
 
 No change. Majority, 2,677. 
 In 1904 the figures were : — Lieutenant-Colonel Probyn (M.), 2,403 ; Lord 
 Elcho (]\I.R.), 2,312 ; the Rev. A. W. Oxford (P.), 1,220; Mr. J. S. 
 Hyder (P.), 1,098. At each of the previous elections the division returned 
 two Moderates. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (BOW AND BROMLEY) (14,745). 
 Mr. W. S. M. Knight (M.R.) 3,285 Mr. A. A. Watts (S.D.) ... 786 
 
 Mr. II. V. ROWE (M.R.) ...3,212 Mr. J. Stokes (S.D.) 783 
 
 *Mr. W. W. Bruce (P.) ... 3,019 Mr. J. S. Bird (L.) 1.59 
 
 *Mr. B.Cooper (P.) ... 3,019 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 266. 
 
 •In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. W. W. Biiice (P.), 3,420 ; .Mr. B. Cooper 
 
 (P.),3,.388; Mr. H. C. Batchelor (M.), 1,600 ; Captain B. Levett (:\t.), 
 
 1,.596. In each of the ])revious elections the division i-eturned two Pro- 
 
 gessives, except in the first, when the representation was divided. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (LIMEHOUSE) (8,022). 
 
 Mr. CvTtri, Jackson (M.R.)... 2,141 *Mr. A. L. Leon (P.) 1,957 
 
 Mr.J.I/)HT-Wii,i.iAMs(M.R.) 2,026 Mr, T. L, Knight (P.) ... 1,935 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 184. 
 In 1901 the numbers were :— Mr. A. B. Bawn (P.), 2,461 ; Mr. A. L. Leon 
 (I'.), 2,3SI ; Sir C.Elliott (M.), 1,517; Mr. E. Gray (M.), 1,396. At 
 each of llic previous elcclions two I'rogressivos wore returned.
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (^rTLE END) (0,839). 
 Mr. R. If. AroNTGOMERY ^fr. R. llarcourb (P.) 1,988 
 
 (M.R.) 2,023 Rov. T. Warren (P.) 1,92.5 
 
 Mr. E. TT. COOMBE (M.R.)... 2,011 
 
 Two IM.R. gains. Majority, S."). 
 
 In 190-1 the numbers were :— Mr. G. J. Warren (P.), 2,12.t ; Mr. B. S. 
 Straus (P.), 2,121 ; Mr. A. O. Goodrich (M.), l,.'j.59 ; Professor W, R. 
 Smith (M.), 1,368; Mr. W. Baxter (1.), 3G. At each of the previous 
 elections two Progressives were returned, except in 189.J, when two 
 Moderates were elected. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (POPLAR) (13,2G3). 
 *Mr. W. Crooks, M.P. (P.).., 3,504 Dr. T. H. Chirko (M.R.) ... 2,778 
 =!^Sri? J. McDoua.VLT, (P.) ... 3,47G Colonel A. Maude (M.R.) ... 2,.')79 
 No change. Majority, 72.'). 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— ]\Ir. Crooks, M.P. (P.), 3,.j3G ; Sir J, 
 McDougall (P.), 3,1G9 ; Dr. T. II. Clarke (M.), 1,891, At each of the pre- 
 vious elections the division returned two Progressives, except at the first, 
 when the representation was divided. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (ST. GEORGE'S) (4,7.-51). 
 
 *Mr. II. Gosling (P.) ... 1,183 Rev. T. King (R.C.) 9.V2 
 
 Mr. P. C. Simmons (M.R.) ... 1,104 Dr. W. R. Smith (M.R.) ... 881 
 *Mr. J. Smith (P.) ... 1,035 Mr. J. \\\ Linch (R.C.) ... G32 
 One M.R. gain. Majority, 69. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. H. Gosling (P.), 1,350 ; Mr. J. Smith 
 (P.), 1,263 ; Mr. G. Foster (M.), 1,095 ; Mr. H. H. Wells (M.), 1,045. In 
 1901 the representation was divided, in 1898 two Progressives were re- 
 tiu-ned, in 1895 two Moderates, in 1892 a Progressive and a Labour Pro- 
 gressive, and in 1889 two Progressives. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (STEPNEY) (6,584). 
 Mr. A. O. Goodrich (M.R.) 2,366 Mr. C. S. Stettaner (P.) ...1,485 
 
 :klr. F. Lkverton Harris Mr. C. Watsoii (P.) 1,386 
 
 (M.R.) 2,292 
 
 One :M.R. gain. Majority, 881. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Mr. W. C. Steadman (P.), 2,004 ; Lord 
 Malmesbury (M.), 1,960 ; Mr. T. M. Kirkivood (M.), 1,942 ; Mr. Harold 
 Spender (P.), 1,874. In 1901 the representation was divided, in 1898 and 
 1895 two Progressives were elected, in 1892 a Labour Progressive and a 
 Progressive, and in 1889 a Moderate and a Progressive. 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS (WHITECHAPEL) (5,630). 
 *Mr. W'. V. Johnson (P.) ... 1,7.56 Mr. C. Wertheimer (M.R.) 980 
 
 *Mr. H. H. Gordon (1.) ...1,627 Mr. Elkin (LP.) 773 
 
 Mr. E. Hodsoll (M.R.) ... 1,211 
 
 No change. M;ijority, 515. 
 In 1904 the n\unbers were :— Mr. H. 11. Gordon (L), 1,616; Mr. W. C. 
 Johnson (P.), 1,3-26 ; Mr. G. L. Bruce (P.), 1,163 ; the Rev. K. C. Carter 
 (M.), 910 ; Colonel G. B. B. Hobart (M.), 710. In each of the previous 
 elections two Progressives were returned, exce|it in 1895, when a Pro- 
 gressive and a Moderate were chosen.
 
 7n 
 
 WANDSWORTH (43,269). 
 *SlR W.J. Lancaster (M.R.) 15,700 Mr. F. Kellaway (P.) ...9,628 
 
 *Mr. W. Hunt (M.R.) 14,.535 
 
 No change. Majority, 6,072. 
 In 1904 the munbers were :— Mr. W. J. Lancaster (M.), 8,526 ; Mr. W. 
 Hunt (M.), 8,342 ; Mr. R. Tweedie-Smith (P.), 6,782 ; Mr. E. Pascoe- 
 Willianis (P.), 6,661. At the 1901 election the representation was divided ; 
 in 1898 two Moderates were returned, but at a by-election in 1899 a Pro- 
 gressive was elected in place of one of these ; in 1895 two Moderates 
 were elected ; and in 1892 and 1889 a Moderate and a Progressive. 
 
 WESTMINSTER (10,664). 
 Hon. W. R. Peel (M.R.) ... 3,419 Mr. W. B. Campbell (P.)... 1,299 
 
 *Mr. C. Y. Sturge (M.R.) ... 3,392 Mr. E. Herrin (P.) 1,298 
 
 No change. Majority, 2,120. 
 In 1904 the munbers were :— Mr. R. W. Granville-Smith (M.), 2,006 ; 
 Mr. C. Y. Sturge (M.), 1,955 ; Mr. C. L. Haywood (P.), 1,192 ; Mr. C. 
 Duncan (L.), 1,169. At the 1901 and 1898 elections two Moderates were 
 returned. 
 
 WOOLWICH (22,830). 
 Mr. W. J. Squires (M.R.) ... 8,904 *Rev. L.J.K. Jones(P.&L.) 7,880 
 Mr. E. A. H. Jay (M.R.) ... 8,677 Mr. G. Lansbury (P. & L.) 7,611 
 
 Two M.R. gains. Majority, 1,024. 
 In 1904 the numbers were :— Rev. L. J. Jones (P.), 6,982 ; Mr. F. 
 Chambers (P.), 6,869 ; Mr. E. A. H. Jay (M.), 4,437 ; Mr. J. M. Dum- 
 I)hreys (M.), 4,097. At each of the previous elections the division returned 
 two Moderates, except in 1892, when a Moderate and an Independent were 
 elected. 
 
 A COMPARISON OF ELECTIONS. 
 
 Tlie following is an analysis of the figures at this and ])revious 
 elections — 
 
 — I Pro. M.R. Indpt. i Pro. vote. INl.R. vote. : Majority. 
 
 1895 .. 
 
 . 59 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 126,570 
 
 141, .502 
 
 M.R. 
 
 14,932 
 
 1898 . 
 
 . 70 
 
 47 
 
 1 
 
 151,027 
 
 148,435 
 
 P. 
 
 2.592 
 
 1901 .. 
 
 . 87 
 
 31 
 
 — 
 
 153,152 
 
 114,392 
 
 P. 
 
 38,759 
 
 1904 . 
 
 . 83 
 
 34 
 
 1 
 
 173,660 
 
 143,863 
 
 P. 
 
 28,799 
 
 1907 . 
 
 . 38 
 
 79 
 
 1 
 
 195,-558 
 
 240,846 
 
 M.R. 
 
 45,288 
 
 In the figures for 1907 three Labour members are reckoned as Pro- 
 gressives in the number of Progressives returned. In the total votes 
 Labour votes and Socialist votes are reckoned as Progressive votes ; votes 
 for ludependent and Roman Catholic candidates are not included in either 
 the Progressive or Moderate vote.
 
 March 4, 1907. 
 
 THE NEW COUNCIL. 
 
 The ft)lluwiiig is a loiiipleto list, of (lie ck't^ted members i>f the new 
 Coiuicil, with their constituencies. Au asterisk denotes a member of the 
 outgoing Council : — 
 
 George Alexander, .M.R., St. Pan- 
 eras (S.). 
 
 *A. A. Allen, M.P., P.,Bennondsoy. 
 
 C.A.M.Barlow, .\r.R., Islington (K.). 
 
 *Sir H. M. Beachcroft, M.R., 
 Paddingtoa (S.). 
 
 *Dr. R. Al. Beaton, P., St. I'ajicras 
 (N.) 
 
 A. Shirley Benn, M.lt., Battersea. 
 
 1. II. Benn, M.R., Greenwich. 
 
 *Sir J. \V. Benn, M.P., P., Ken- 
 uington. 
 
 Lord II. Bentinck, M.R., Maryle- 
 bone (W.). 
 
 G. Billings,M.R., Hackney (Central) . 
 
 J. Boyton, M.R., Marylebone (E.). 
 
 *J. Brandon, M.R., Hammersmith. 
 
 *R. Bray, P., Camberwell (N.). 
 
 *F. Briant, P., L;i.mbeth (N.). 
 
 F, Cassel. M.R., St. Pancras (W.) 
 
 W. A. Casson, P., Hackney (S.). 
 
 T. Chapman, P., Hackney (S.). 
 
 *Lord Cheylesmore, M.R., St. 
 George's, Hanover-square. 
 
 A. W. Claremout, P., St. Pancras 
 (E). 
 
 H. J. Clarke, M.R., Islington (W.). 
 
 *C. Cobb, M.R., Fulham. 
 
 N. L. Cohen, M.R., City. 
 
 *E. Collins, M.R., Hannuersniitli. 
 
 Sir C Kinloch-Cooke, M.R., Clap- 
 ham. 
 
 *Sir E. Coniwall, M.P., !»., Bethnal- 
 green (N.E.). 
 
 E. II. Coombe, .M.U., Mile-end. 
 *\V. Crooks, M.P., P., Poplar. 
 Dr. J. Uavics, M.R., Haggerstoji. 
 *\V. Davies, P., Battersea. 
 
 U. Davis, M.R.. Kensington (N.). 
 *J. A. Daws, P.. Walworth. 
 Rev. E. Demiy, P., Keniiington. 
 *G. Dew, P., Islington (S.). 
 T. \V. Domoney, .M.R., Claphani. 
 
 F. L. Dovc.M.R., Islington (N.). 
 W. L. Dowton, .M.R., IVckham. 
 Lord Duiicaniion, M.l!., Marvlchdiic 
 
 (E.). 
 E. G. Easton, .M.H., Fulham. 
 *LordElcho, M.R., Straml. 
 C. U. Fisher, .M.K., Norwood. 
 
 *Dr. E. B. Forman, M.R., Kensing- 
 ton (S.). 
 
 *T. Gautrey, P., Peckham. 
 
 *J. D. (iilbert,P., Newingtoti (W.). 
 
 *ir. J. (Jlanville, P., Rotherliithc. 
 
 T. C. E. GofY, M.R., Chelsea. 
 
 *F. Goldsmith, JM.R., St. Pancras 
 (S.). 
 
 II. C. Gooch, M.R., Dulwich. 
 
 *A. O. Goodrich, M.R., Stepney. 
 
 *1I. H. Gordon, I., Whitechapel. 
 
 *H. Gosling, P., St. George's, 
 Tower Hamlets. 
 
 II. Greene, M.R., Hackney (N.), 
 
 *II. J. Greenwood, -M.R., St. 
 George's, Hanover-square. 
 
 E. Gray, M.R., Hoxton. 
 
 *Hon. R. Guinness, M.R. , Hagger- 
 ston. 
 
 Hon. W. Guinness, M.R., Padding- 
 ton (N.). 
 
 F. Hall, M.R., Dulwich. 
 Ahlerman F. S. Hanson, M.R., 
 
 City. 
 P. A. Harris, P., Bethnal-green 
 
 (S.W.) 
 F. L. Harris, M.R., Stepney. 
 *H. P. Harris, M.R., Paddingtoa 
 
 (S.j. 
 Rev. F. Hastings, P., St. Pancras 
 
 (E.). 
 W. Haydon, M.R., Lambeth. 
 Rev. Stewart Headlam, P., Bethnal- 
 green (S.W.) 
 *Captain Hon. F. Hemphill, P., 
 
 Finsbury (Central). 
 S. J. G. Hoare, .\LK., Lambeth. 
 E. Howes, M.R., Finsbury (K.). 
 *W. Hunt, :M.R., Wandsworth. 
 J. H. Hunter, .M.R., Paddington, 
 
 (N.). 
 *T. Hunter, P., Southwark, \\\ 
 C. Jackson, M.R., Limehouse. 
 E. A. H. Jay, M.R., Woolwich. 
 *C. Jessou, P., Walworth. 
 *W. C. Jolnisou, P., Whitcciiapel. 
 Ilou. (i. Johnstone, M.K'., Ilagger- 
 
 ston. 
 Lord Kerrv, M.IL, .Mar\ icbone 
 
 (W.). 
 W. 11. Key. M.R., Hackney, (.X.J.
 
 yy 
 
 W. S. M. Kuight, M.K., Bow. ami 
 Bromley. 
 
 *.Sir W. J. Lancaster, M.R., 
 Waudswortli. 
 
 Lord Levvisluim, ISLK., Lewisham. 
 
 Hou. H. Lygoii, M.R., Holborn. 
 
 *Sir J; M'bougall, P., Poplar. 
 
 K. H. Montgomery, jSLR., Mile- 
 end 
 
 F. St. J. ^lorrow, M.R., Norwood. 
 
 C. K. Murchison, M.R., Islington 
 (N.). 
 
 R. C. Norman, IVLR., Chelsea. 
 
 W. H. Pannell, M.R., City. 
 
 Hon. W. R. Peel, M.R., West- 
 minster. 
 
 *R. C. Phillimore, P., Deptford. 
 
 P. E. Pilditch, M.R., Islington 
 (E.). 
 
 *A. Pomeroy, P., Rotherhithe. 
 
 A. Pownall, ]NLR., Lewisham. 
 
 *Lieiitenant-Colonel A. Probyn, 
 M.R., Strand. 
 
 \V, Reynolds, i\LR., Hampstead. 
 
 *R. A. Robinson, .\LR., Kensing- 
 ton (S.) 
 
 H. V. Rowe, ^LR., Bow and 
 Bromley. 
 
 *A. B. Russell, P., Finsbury (Cen- 
 tral). 
 
 1. Salmon, M.R., Islington (\V.). 
 
 *Dr. A. Salter, P., Berniondsey. 
 
 *H. S. SanJcey, M.R., City. 
 
 P. C. Simmonds, M.U., St. 
 George's, Tower Hamlets. 
 
 Major C. L. A. Skinner, M.R., 
 Kensington (N.). 
 
 *E. Smith, P., Bethnal - gi'een 
 (N.E.). 
 
 F. Smith, L., Lambeth (N.). 
 
 *Evan Spicor, P. Newington (\V.). 
 
 \V. J. Squires, M.R., Woolwich. 
 
 \V. B. Stewart, M.R., Hackney 
 (Central). 
 
 *C. Y. Sturge, M.R., Westminster. 
 
 *H. R. Taylor, P., CambcrwcU (N.). 
 
 *J. T. Taylor, :M.R., Hampstead. 
 
 Lord A. J. Thymic, M.R., Green- 
 wich. 
 
 P. Vosper, M.R., St. Pancras (W.). 
 
 *D. S. Waterlow, M.P., P., St. 
 Pancras (N.). 
 
 ^Sidney Webb, P., Deptford. 
 
 Colonel A. C. Welby, M.R., Fins- 
 bury (B.). 
 
 E. E. Wild, M.R., Holborn. 
 
 *H. J. Williams, P., Islitigtou (S.). 
 
 J. L. AVilliams, M.R., Limehouse. 
 
 A. Wilson, P., Southwark (W.).
 
 March 19, 1907. 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 The vei'dict of the electors lius opened a new chaptei- in tlie 
 history of the Council. It will be written hereafter in due 
 time, no doubt ; at present only the heading stands, and that 
 is " Change." Whatever conclusions or inferences are drawn 
 from the election, one thing is quite certain, and that is that a 
 large majority of those who take any interest in the matter at 
 all desire a change. Some i^ersons evidently do not believe 
 that there will be any ciiange worth mentioning. The collective 
 and sagacious observer of affairs, commonly called " Mi-. 
 Punch," who often conveys much wisdom in a jest, took this 
 view. He played the shrewd cj'nic, represented the contest as a 
 matter of small interest and less importance, a case of six of one 
 and half a dozen of the other, and virtually told his readers that 
 it did not matter for whom they voted or whether they voted at 
 all. Herein his sagacity failed liim. Shrewd cynicism is a cheap 
 and shoddy make of wisdom ; it takes the eye of the foolish 
 when it is new, but has no substance in it, and soon wears 
 visibly to I'ags. We have had too much of it in regard to 
 municipal affairs ; it has long been worn out, and happily it did 
 not prevail on this occasion. The importance of the issue was 
 not realized so fidly as it might have been, but enough people 
 took it seriously to produce a decisive result. This is, in truth, 
 a matter of far greater interest than appears on the surface, 
 as I will try to explain, if the reader will bear with me. 
 
 Socialism — that is, the organized political and economic 
 movement known by that name — is rapidly becoming tlie leading 
 question in all Western countries at the i)resent epocli, if it has 
 not already taken tlie lead. It embraces or touclies all tlie otliei- 
 questions generally considered important, such as inteiniational 
 relations, war, disarmament, forms of Jiovernment, religion, 
 taxation, education ; it is pretty nearly world-wide, and 
 expanding year by year. Such domestic questions as the House 
 of Lords and Home llule are mere trifles compared with the 
 march of this movement. Those who do not see that are blind to 
 what is going on about them. Many are beginning to see ; they 
 know at least that it is not a thing merely to laugh at ; they are 
 afraid of it, but do not luiderstand it. Most even of those who 
 call themselves Socialists do not comprehend what is hapi)eiiing. 
 The jwevailiiig idea, .t like among those who fear and those who 
 hope, is that it means something abrupt, if not violent ; a 
 perceptible overthrow or collapse of existing arrangements and 
 relations. That was the idea of Marx, and still is the idea of 
 that section of Socialists which follows his teaching, and is 
 probabh' more niuueroiis than any other ; they look to a political
 
 80 
 
 revolution of some kind, not by force, Init still a revolution, 
 though they have never explained how it is to come about. 
 Others, clearer-sighted, do not believe in a revolution, but in a 
 consummation by gradual steps. Nearly everybody, however, 
 believes that Socialism is a movement of the people, of the 
 " working classes," or the " proletariate," to use the particularly 
 inappropriate term beloved by Socialists, and that, whether it be 
 the handwriting on the wall presaging the overthrow of Babylon 
 or the initiation of a slow constitutional process, it has behind it 
 the immense potential force of the jjeople. But that is not so — 
 yet. Socialism is not a popular movement ; it did not spring 
 from the people, like trade unionism and co-operation, nor has it 
 been carried on bj' the people. It is a half-intellectual half- 
 emotional movement, which emanated from the honrgeoisie or 
 middle classes and has been carried on by them. The leading- 
 names, which form landmarks in its development, all belong to 
 that sti'atum of society. Godwin, whose " I'olitical Justice " 
 laid the foiuidation of systematic Socialism and contained all the 
 essential ideas since developed, was for some years a Noncon- 
 formist minister and was the son of one. Owen, who translated 
 the idea into action, crude and short-lived but real, who gave it 
 its name, and made it familiar, was a manufacturer. Marx, who 
 was the father of political Socialism as we know it, was a 
 Gelelirter. These are the most outstanding landmarks, and the 
 others ai*e like unto them. It is curious that this movement, 
 which so loudly jiroclaims itself anti-honygeois, should derive all 
 its inspiration from bourgeois sources. " Labour " has contributed 
 nothing, although the ostensible ol)ject of the whole thing is to 
 secure the " rights " of labour. Socialism has, of course, 
 appealed to that class and endeavoured to obtain its support ; in 
 recent times it has particularly aimed at utilizing the great 
 strength of the trade imions, with some, but more apparent than 
 I'eal, success. It has gained some more or less convinced 
 adiierents among the prominent men, but its hold over the rank 
 and file is very slight. Over tlie mass of the people it has failed 
 to obtain any direct hold at all, whicli was only to be expected. 
 Kconomic theories are about as intelligible and attractive to the 
 mass of tlie people as liighor matliematics. As for the poor, they 
 are the most conservative of all classes. 
 
 For these reasons Socialism portends no revolutionary 
 rising of the people, nor even a great organization from within. 
 It has failed to capture them directly and has betaken itself to the 
 political patli. It relies on tlie ballot-box, and appeals not to 
 tlie man, l)iit to the voter. Some ])ersons may tliink there is 
 no great ditlerence except that the revolution will be gradual 
 instead of sudden ; and tliat a|)i)ears to be the opinion of 
 Socialists tluMuselves. They do not doubt the end for a 
 moment ; tliey are certain that their ideas will be realized. 
 But there is an enormous diilerence between a movement which
 
 81 
 
 has behincT it millioiis of devoted adliei'euts and one which makes 
 way not by the conversion of convinced believers in its truth, 
 but by votes drawn from indifferent hearers by attractive 
 Ijromises of tangible beueiit. As soon as it becomes a power, it 
 is by that very fact placed upon trial in the eyes of its sup- 
 jjorters, who are free to withdraw their sui)port if the promises 
 are not realized. Socialists believe in their tlieoiy bj- conviction, 
 and probably nothing- would shake their laith ; if the people 
 were in the same case they would be irresistible, but that is just 
 what they are not. The people have no faith, thougli they may 
 have hope ; they wait for results. The popular success of 
 Socialism in various countries during the last few years means 
 that its promises have been so far accepted as to make it a power, 
 and thereby to place it on trial. It has two spheres of action — 
 the legislative and the administrative ; in some countries the 
 former, in others the latter, is the more pi'ominent. In Germanj', 
 for instance, tlie forces of Socialism are mainly concentrated on 
 the Reichstag ; in England they have only just begun to exercise 
 any influence in Parliament ; tlieir real activity has been bi-ought 
 to bear upon administration, ehieflj' through local government. 
 In both countries recent elections haA'e illustrated the point I 
 am tr3ing to establisli. In both, Socialism lias had to re-appeal 
 to the people after a i^eriod of prolonged and increasing success 
 at the polls, and in both, to its great disappointment and the 
 surprise of those who do not go below the surface of current 
 events, tlie instability of a power which rests upon the ballot-box 
 has been demonstrated. So far from sweei^ing onward in a 
 gathering wave of enthusiasm. Socialism has been shown to be 
 merely on trial, and subject to the cold vei'dict of an independent 
 electorate. 
 
 These considerations lend extreme interest to the London 
 County Council election and the situation produced by its result. 
 It is here in England, the original birthplace of Socialism, 
 that it has been brought to the test of actual experience. 
 The Social Democratic party in the German Reichstag 
 has been sterile, it has produced only negative I'esults ; but 
 Socialistic municipal administration in England has i)roduced 
 positive results which can be judged and weighed. London 
 is the great example, and the Coimty Coinicil the chief 
 instrument. I am not concerned to argue the question whether 
 Progressive Comicillors are or call themselves Socialists or 
 not ; the point is that Socialism has made \ise of the pai'ty, 
 as it has made use, though less fully, of the trade unions. 
 The distinctive features of the Progressive policy have been 
 purely Socialistic. They are not "confined to London or to 
 the County Coimcil, but that body has led the way. The 
 fullest exiKtsition of Municipal Socialism is entitled " The 
 London Programme"; and Mr. Stead Jias truly called the 
 Coimty Council "the nursing mother of Municipal Socialism." 
 

 
 82 
 
 Now, it is tliat policy wliicli has been on trial and has met witli 
 a rebuff. The electors have called for a change, and the 
 important question is wliat the change is to be ; for we may Ije 
 quite certain of this, that, if the change fails to justify itself, thej' 
 will go back and give Socialism anotlier and a better chance. 
 The progress of events will be watched all over the world ; for 
 the significance of the experimental trial of Socialism in 
 London and its result have been more clearly realized at a 
 distance than at home, and the sound of the recent election 
 has reverberated far and wide. The sequel, therefore, will 
 exercise great influence. If tlie new administration be successful 
 in retaining public confidence. Socialism will be deeply 
 discredited ; for it will have tried and failed, and will have been 
 proved inferior to alternative methods. The more advanced 
 Socialists, no doubt, deny that it has ever had a trial, 
 and despise sucli a milk-and-watery business as London Coimty 
 Council Socialism. But they are not the judges, and the people 
 who are will assuredly be slow to swallow a large dose of 
 this particular medicine when they see that a small one has 
 done them more harm than good, and that thej- are better with- 
 out it. If Fabianism leads to financial embarrassment. Social 
 Democracy would spell bankruptcy. The same reasoning applies 
 to the wliole field of legislative action. If Municipal Socialism is 
 discredited, State Socialism will be still less acceptable. We 
 see that ])laiuly enough in the reaction of the London 
 municipal elections on Parliament ; the Socialist section 
 there at once lost ground, and its opponents or unwilling 
 friends no longer fear it as they did. In fact, it is in the 
 municipalities, and particularlj- in the London County Council, 
 that the real battle is being fought. It would be too much to 
 say that the whole future of Socialism depends on the 
 result ; but certainly its future will be profoundly influenced 
 by the result. 
 
 The new administration can succeed if it has the will. It 
 starts under fair auspices, with a sufficient backing of public 
 favour and no incubus of extravagant expectations ; for it has 
 made no impossible pi'omises. It will automaticallj^ shed some of 
 the objoetioual)le weaknesses which rendered the Council an object 
 of general dislike — the desire for aggrandisement, the domineering 
 quai'relsome spirit and the vulgar habit of bragging, whi-ch it 
 learnt from the greatest boaster known to i)ublic life since Cleon 
 the tanner. These things will disappear, and with them the 
 friction between the Council and other bodies, which has been 
 a great public disadvantage. But in di'opi)ing the weaknesses 
 of its predecessors the new Council must be careful not to shed 
 their merits, and in particular the merit of work. It cannot be 
 denied that in the past the Moderate side of the Council has had 
 the reputation of being less hardworking, less zealous, and less 
 regular in attendance than the Progressives. If Ihat reputation
 
 83 
 
 is retained, or earned again, it will be fatal to tlieni. The 
 work of the Conneil entails a greab deal of drudgery, and, 
 unless the members of the party now in power are prepared to 
 do the work and put their baeks into it, they will suffer by com- 
 parison and be found wanting. One of the things which helped 
 to turn opinion so strongly against the Progressives was the 
 large number of them who had recently gone into Parliament 
 and were pre-oecupied with other affairs. If the other side 
 indulge in slack attendance without any such excuse, they 
 will certainly lose public confidence. 
 
 Of specific problems before them, the greatest is, of course, 
 the financial position of the Council. They have been 
 well advised in resolving to go thoroughly into the matter, 
 and, if they are wise, they will lose no time aboiit it. The 
 public quite understands that the position is inherited, and that 
 an immediate extrication from embarrassments is impossible ; 
 it expects no wonders, but it does expect to be taken into 
 the Council's confidence and to have the state of the case put 
 fairly before it. If no economies are jiossible, it will be wise 
 to say so at once ; a straightforward open policy will pay 
 best. But thei'e is certainly one ])oint in which economy can 
 be exercised, and that is in dropping tlie exjienditure devoted 
 to promoting Socialistic legislation in Parliament and to 
 vexatiously opposing all other bodies, public or private, that 
 propose to do anything which might hypothetically be done 
 by the London County Council. That is what the Council 
 has been doing steadily for j-ears, as a matter of principle, 
 without anj' regard to cost, chance of success, or the public 
 welfare. Enormous sums have in this way been thrown into tlie 
 sea, that is into tlie pockets of la\\'yers, technical experts, and 
 witnesses, without any result except to delay useful or necessary 
 works. A chapter might be written on this head, at least 
 as telling as anything that has gone before ; for in nothing done 
 by the Progressive partj^ has the subordination of public interest 
 to Socialistic theory and to the aggrandisement of the Council 
 been more plainly sho\\^l. Here we touch what is, of course, 
 the most difficult and the most widely important question before 
 the new Council- — its attitude towards Municipal Socialism ; 
 and in regard to this it appears to me that there is some risk 
 that a mistake may be made. 
 
 Municipal trading or enterprise is not necessarilj- Socialistic. 
 It existed long before Socialism was thoTight of, and to-day 
 there is many a town in Germany where it is more higlily 
 developed than in London without a single Socialist on the town 
 council, which may be entirely composed of anti-Socialists and 
 yet deliberately undertake all kinds of municipal enterprises. 
 The difference is this — that in such cases municipal action is 
 not adopted as a matter of principle, but because there ai'e 
 good reasons for believing that it will be to the public ad-
 
 84 
 
 vautage, whereas Socialists assume that municipal action must 
 always aucl in all cases be to the public advantage and pret'eralile 
 to ijrivate action, because it is a step towards that complete 
 collectivism at which they aim. Hostility to private enterprise 
 is the keynote of their policy. It follows that, when they have 
 succeeded in installing some municipal enterprise, thej' have 
 so far attained their object, and do not feel strongly the necessity 
 of making it successful in fact as well as in theory. It is 
 enough to say that it is successful when election time comes 
 round. Hence carelessness, extravagance, bliuiders, and then 
 shifty expedients to cover them up. But, if the other side 
 make oijposition to municipal, and the support of private, 
 enterprise a matter of principle, they will fall into the same 
 mistake. Sometimes private enterprise is better, but it must not 
 be assumed to be so. Theoretical Socialism and Individualism 
 are both fallacious, for the bed-rock fact is that man is both 
 individual and social, and imfitted by nature to have either 
 everything or nothing in common with his fellows. The onlj' 
 rule to go by is to judge each case, without prejudice, on its 
 merits, so far as they can be ascertained. And to that end it is 
 desirable that the existing enterprises of the Council should 
 be thoroughly overhauled and their true position and prospects 
 ascertained, so far as it is possible. If they are good, let them 
 stand ; if not, let them cease. The public will acquiesce, for 
 reason shown. As for the allegation that the election was 
 fought and won in the interest of monopolies and trusts, it 
 would be an insult to the Council to notice it, as it would be an 
 insult to the old Council to i^raise its clean administration. 
 Integrity is not so rare that we need thank God for an honest 
 man. Mr. Burns seems to think it wonderful that he and his 
 friends should have clean hands ; I consider it elementary, but 
 then I am not a Socialist, 
 
 The guiding rule, which includes all the rest, is to keej) 
 steadily in view the interests of the whole communitj' and nevei* 
 subordinate them to party, prejudice, theorv, or class. If the 
 new Council does that, it will retain the merits, and avoid the 
 defects, of the old one, and will show the woi-ld a better way. 
 
 Note. — On page 20 the sentence in brackets beginning '* This 
 probably means ... " was written inider a misapprehension 
 to which the writer's attention has since been called, and he 
 wishes to withdraw it. He luiderstands that the words " those of 
 the borough councils" mean " tliose functions of the borough 
 councils." The ambiguity is due to tlie clumsy wording of the 
 inanifesto. 
 
 Wtr- The date of publication in ZTbc Zimee is shown 
 at the head of each article.
 
 -^'•'596 8230
 
 TgT? \pY 
 
 ^t^siiX oi CALlKUi 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 3 1158 01226 8230 
 
 /l.v 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 994 508 o