New-York tribune., 1895-12-07
PART II.
PAGES 1s TO IS.
A MUNICIPAL PARLIAMENT.
II.
POLITICAL DEADLOCK IN THE LONDON
COUNTY COUNCIL-THE PROGRESS
SIVE POLICY BLOCKED.
London. November %.

gressjves have been playing at cross purposes
since the March elections when their voting
strength in the Lon ion County Council was
nearly cQualiZed. One party has been at the
mercy Of the other. and partisan considerations
have had more weight than reformatory zeal and
the public welfare The Moderates have OBJ
etructed the development Of Progressive policies
ard the Progress.ves have thwarted the consum-
nation Of various Improvement schemes IN which
the Moderates take deep interest. The retire
ment Of Earl Cadogan left a vacancy which had
70 be filed by a special election in Chelsea. If
the Progressivcs had carried 1t the two parties
would have beer equally divided so far as nu-
-nerical strength in the Council was concerned
The gain or loss OF a seat was. however. less i'm
portant than the moral effect of an appeal TO
representative body Of London cleo -ors. The two
parties have been operating on opposite lines
ana have represented policies which appar
emily irreconcilable The result, of this bye-elcc
tion must be interpreted an indication that
the Moderates are supported, at least temporari-
ly. by public pinion
Both parties have made active efforts 10 carry
the election. Mr.. Chapman the Moderate candi-
date has been supported by Lord Cnslow the
leader Of his party in the Council. and has ad
dressed public meetings and placarded Chelsea
with advice 10 the electors TO vote for temper
ancc without tyranny. innocent amusemerts and
10 cant. Lord Monkswel champoned the cause
O. Mr. insult. the Progressive candidate, and
Nehemently attacked Lord Onslov and the Mod
crates for their action u deferring indefinitely.
& not defeating altogether. the projects for pur
chasing The tramways and dsposing of the water
companies and other monopolies.
DEFEAT FOR THE PROGRESSIVEs.
The March election in Chelsea was very close
each party having a candidate at the head Of
the poll and the majorities being small In YES
terday's bye-clect'on Mr.. Chapmans majority
was 1855. his vote being far in advance Of that
Of Earl Cadogan in the spring. It is a decisive
defeat for the Progressives. The municipal cleo
tors in London are virtually grounded upon pop
u.ar suffrage. Any householder whose name Is
on the registry has the privilege of voting. even
y he rents only a sarret room in tenement
house. Widows and unmarried women also share
the electoral privilege. If they own or rent the
rooms in which they live. II is popular suffrage
and represents both the masses and the classes.
The result Of this poll indicates public discon-
tent with the policies and methods of the Pro
gressive refor!ae"s
The first County Council elected in 1889. was
q municipal Parliament Of a representative char
acter. with Sir John Lubbock, Lord Rosebery,
Lord Compton. Lord Monkswell Sir Thomas Far
rar. Frederic Harrison. Sir Arthur Arnold, Mr..
Firth and many other distinguished men as
members The Councillors We're chosen without
reference u residence in the districts where they
were nominated. and with little regard for polit-
zeal considerations. 1t was the first occasion
when the citizens Of the metropolis had exercised
any influence in the choice OF their muni eipal
servants and the main motive of the electors
seemed 10 be the selection of practical men. who
would devote their time to the public service and
evolve an orderly system of local government
from the anomalous conditions then prevailing
So long as vesu.es were conducted as close cor
rorations and the Metropolitan Board Of Works
hid ,ts light uniar a bushel. no Londoner knew
how he was governed and public opinion was
never brought 10 bear upon municipal questions.
The taxpayers complained Of the rates and sus-
pected that there was a good deal Of secret job
berry going on. but that was the end of the mat
ter. when the County Council was chosen there
was AZ least publicity in all questions of local
government. Lond1ners at last could know what
was going on in the administration OF their great
town.
PARTY LINES SHARPLY DRAWN.
When the second Council was elected. three
xea~s a.torward. there was an exciting struggle.
Parry names had changed the Liberal in nation
al noli.ics being known as Progressive in local
politics and the Conservative or Jnionist as
Moderate: but the inherent characteristic differ
.ncos in men had been disclosed. The Progress
stves had become intensely interested IN the un'-
fcation Of London and In the introduction of
municipal policies, which We're promoting the
welfare of other English cities; and they were
enxious 10 have more legislation and 10 trans
form AS rapidly as possible the government or
London. The Moderstes We're more cautious ana
thov were appalled, by the maeni-
.-do of +be nroblems Of the rec0nstruction Of the
Government OF the metropolis; and they were
sceptical respecting the practcability Of dealing
with London on the principles embodled IN
the administration Of Birmingham. Manchester
Glasgow. Liverpool and other great British
towns
The Progressves. with Their dehnite pohcN'
mn n great victory Their majority in the
County Council was 30. Conservative LONDON
sae,,es 20 have turned to them with one accord
and 10 have commissioned them TO 20 on win all
ross,b,e dispatch and to bring in new order OF
iooal government. Whatever may be said re-
spe.,ing their discretion and good sense in tax
3a- vn various disturbing questions Of minor I'M
1,..,aYce they cannot be charged with lack OF
4,o~gv and constructive power. The Liberal
p a.,a.ro,oent co-operated intellieenty win theA
b. aonointing Royal Commission Which pro
d...d ~ due time a comprehensive plan for the
indication If London and the redistribution oi
local powers. ,,.,
Tho Proeressives have done some f'ohsh
things it Is true: but they have stood LOT "
definite policy and have aimed to introduce III
London the municipal system which j. III 'p'i"
tjon in other English cities. Their prosi ''"8
IS . long one. bat there is nothing revoiu'ond's
fl #. 1t Is the Birmingham or the "lasgo" iue"
anrlied t. London They have assumed 'hdt
r,ha, = working satisfactorily in smaller centres
70 ,,o,,lation will De equally effective in the
oreateA, city in tie world. That may be an error
-, ,,,dgnent London. owing to its vastness OF
area and population and to the oompieXity oi is
interests ray require different order oi hiuilc-
ipal administration. 1t may be impracticaDe ior
a central municipal council operating through