WE

XXIII

THE LOCAL INSTITUTIONS OF ENGLAND

E have seen that the relation between the central government of a state and the various local communities of which that state is composed presents problems of supreme importance only in countries of great extent. It is nevertheless true that in all states of any size the determination of the position of the local districts in the general scheme of government raises an important question. This question also, like the question of states' rights, is one which cannot be answered by the application of any general theory of centralization or local self-government, but must, to be solved satisfactorily, be solved in the light of the conditions which exist at the time the solution is reached.

The solution of this question made in countries whose civilization is Western European can be understood only by one who has some acquaintance with the history of European institutions. To obtain such an acquaintance we must begin our consideration of European local government with a glimpse at the government of the great Roman Empire. For Roman administrative institutions have had a tremendous influence on the subsequent history of Europe.

The original form of Roman political organization was what is called the "City-State." The Roman city-state

was a district consisting of open country and thickly populated areas, inhabited by people of the same blood and worshiping their own gods, who were believed to accord protection to the particular city in which their worship was carried on. The city-state of Rome gradually grew in power and by conquest and treaty extended its influence over the other city-states of Italy. But Rome made no attempt at first to govern these subject states, except in those respects in which Roman control was deemed necessary to the maintenance and extension of Roman power. The maintenance and extension of Roman power did, however, make it appear to be necessary to make provision for a centralized military administration, since it was to her military power that Rome owed her ability to maintain and extend her influence.

A centralized military administration, moreover, involved a centralized tax administration and a centralized administration of the means of communication. For it was only as money was forthcoming that the army could be supported, and it was only as a result of the existence of good and abundant means of communication that the army could be moved expeditiously to the points where it was needed.

The policy pursued by Rome in Italy was afterward followed throughout the entire Mediterranean basin, and, indeed, throughout all of western Europe, until finally all of this part of the world was subjected to the Roman power. The centralization of the military administration which, as we have seen, was deemed necessary to the maintenance of Roman power, involved somewhat of a departure from the city-state idea which originally lay at the basis of the Roman political organization. In the early days of Roman expansion the

Roman state was little but a collection of city-states under the leadership, and in certain respects under the control of the most powerful city-state of all-viz., Rome. But as Roman influence expanded these subordinate citystates were grouped into provinces, each of which was placed under the control of a governor appointed by the Roman authorities. At first the Romans made no attempt to interfere with the law or customs of the districts which they conquered. They were satisfied if they obtained from those districts taxes sufficient in amount to maintain the army. But later the spread of Roman ideas and the great development of commerce incident to the conditions of peace which followed in the train of Roman conquest gradually brought about a unity in the law, as well as in most other matters of a political nature.

Ultimately, thus, the entire administration of the Roman Empire became highly centralized and substantially uniform. The entire country was, first under the Emperor Diocletian, later under the Emperor Constantine, divided into four great districts known as Prætorian Prefectures-viz., those of the East, of Illyricum, of Italy, and of Gaul. At the head of each of these was an officer called a Prætorian Prefect. Each prefecture was divided into dioceses, each of which was governed by a Rector. Each diocese was divided into provinces, at the head of each of which was a President. Each province contained a number of municipalities, the original city-states, at the head of each of which was a council composed of members holding usually by hereditary right. Apart from the members of these municipal councils all the officers of this administrative system were appointed by the Emperor.

The administrative system which has been described, and which, it will be noticed, was highly centralized, had, however, to do only with civil matters. The military administration, according to the system of Constantine, was even more highly centralized, was under the immediate control of the Emperor, and had practically no connection with the civil administration.

The Roman administrative system which has thus been outlined had two noticeable characteristics:

In the first place, it made practically no provision for local self-government. All the officers were appointed from the center, all were subjected to the control of a superior, and no provision was made for the choice by the people of those by whom they were governed.

In the second place, the original idea which lay at the basis of the organization of the old city-state was retained-viz., that no distinction should be made between the administration of the open country and the thickly populated areas. There was no such thing as city government, on the one hand, and rural local government on the other.

The first evidence of the decline of the great Roman Empire may perhaps be found in the abandonment of the islands now known as the British Isles. When the Romans abandoned these islands they were almost at once occupied by a number of piratical German peoples who gradually conquered them. These German peoples were, as compared with the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, barbarians. They had not been subjected to Roman influences, and they had, in the country in which they settled, probably a freer hand in the development of new institutions than they would have had in any other part of the Roman Empire. For Britain had not

been nearly so completely Romanized as had the other parts of Europe.

The institutions which were gradually established in Britain differed greatly from these which we have seen had been almost universally developed on the Continent. The difference was partly due to influences which affected all of Europe, and from which Britain did not escape, and partly to local conditions which existed in Britain only.

The most important of the general European influences is to be found in the development of what has come to be known as the feudal system. The chief characteristic of this system was the emphasis which was laid on local government as opposed to centralization. The whole Roman system of centralization was shattered with the gradual decay of Roman power. As the central authorities abdicated their authority this authority was assumed by those persons who were able to gather about them a local following. These were mainly persons of German origin who had invaded the less well-protected districts of the Roman Empire, and who gradually built up the present political organization of Europe.

One of the incidental results of this breaking up of the Roman Empire was the adoption of a distinction between city and rural government. The fall of the Roman system was accompanied by great disorder. The pax Romana, as it was called, which had for so many years been an incident to Roman control of Europe, ceased any longer to exist. The inhabitants of the thickly populated areas began to build walls and fortifications, behind which they might secure protection and safety against the bands of marauders that were wandering in search of plunder through the formerly peaceful Roman provinces.