New-York tribune., 1902-10-06

lament which could not govern the metropolis
wisely and cheaply when Mr Ritchie was
drafting the Local Government hill in 1855 he
found II impractiCable 20 include IN IL Kent
Surrey and MddleseN, With their millions Of
Londoners. and established finally a new county
with the area Of the Metropolitan Board ~
Works. The experiment has soreIy ssppointed
both him and his ColleaE CUES and they have ac-
oepted Mr.. Chamberlain's argument that hmita-
tion OF the size of municipality IS essential 10
its efficiency. and that while the town councils
of Birmingham, Liverpool, GLASGOW. Edinburgh.
Manchester. Dundee ana Leeds have succeeded
admirably in local administration the metropolis
is too large and unmanageable to - governed
by central body. The ministers of the day
acted upon this theory when they declined three
years ago 20 enlarge the powers Of the London
County Council. snd created twenty-esht mu-
inequalities with borough councils elected IN
narrower areas From the Caustic comments
upon borough administration which are now ap-
pearing In Unonist columns II is evident that
some Of the most Influential supporters of the
government now regret that The borough ooun-
ellis were armed with additional power and dig
nifty Bundle has not turned out a stern, unuend-
ing economist. He has fancied that the caCke
Of his bourg is the murmur of town and has
been infatuated with the passion for big things
q
working politician like the London County
Councillor. and when he is not a spendthTu.
planning wasteful undertakings which are
neither profitable nor necessary. he is a labor
candidate controlled hy trades unions. If not
socialist in command Of battalion ~ municipal
employees
The creation ~ the borough councils was an
act Of decentralization rs which a Conservative
ministry sought 10 defer the unihcation of the
metropolis as an organic whole The Progress
sive programme. based upon an exhaustive re-
port OF q royal commission. Nas more sagacious
II involved Capitalization of power IN the Lon
don County Council, and subsequent process %
devolution Of administrative functions through
the establishment of sub municipal centres IN
the boroughs. The Conservatives are now dis
satisfied with the results OF their own work IN
the partition Of London into many municipal
ties. and are raising a senseless hue and cry
against municipal socialism. becauss some
Of the borough councils are attempting the
direct employment OF labor building town halls
and obtaining control ~ electric supply Bor-
ough socialism is feeble substitute for the
81 stemstized oollectivism which has been eau
tiously introduced and wisely directed In the pro-
vincial cities. where there is supreme centralized
authority and where there is unity 'n local gov
ernment Lord Rosebery once summed up the
matter in the declaration that reformers advo-
eating schemes Of municipal ownership ana
trading were anticipating socialism by dealing
With the soil which might create it and tbat
they were rendering an inestimable service 10
the country. Ministers who sought 10 d,saredu
one OF the chief glories OF British municipsl gov
ernrnent have impaired in the metropolis one 81
the strongest safeguards against socialism
y. r