LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."' Sta,—In your comments on Sir C. Dilke, have you not over- looked two points P You object to his scheme as being equiva- lent to substituting Hyde Park meetings in London in place of the Common Connell. But his scheme is not provided for towns large enough to have a Mayor and Aldermen, but for rural parishes. In a. rural parish, whose average population, as that of a New-England township, might be two or three thousand, if as much, the Open Vestry could not be large, the interests cannot be very conflicting, the distance for each member to come may be long hut is not prohibitive, and yet the gain of dis- cussion for purposes of education is incalculable. If. the Open Vestry were to appoint its overseers yearly, and then to direct them in all that exceeded the ordinary business of the parish, the parish officers would be in immediate contact with their constituents ; and whilst for purposes of making lists, recording events, road surveying, attending to schools, cte., they would act on their own responsibility, yet on questions such as the erection of a new school or the disposal of village property, the parish would not lose the advantage of being consulted. It is just this opportunity of being consulted which creates local public spirit. It is, perhaps, the rareness of such opportunities which makes so Liberal a paper as the Spectator afraid of the risk of [We prefer the old principle of Representation, which weeds out the bad.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
