BUREAUCRACY and self-government must not, however, be regarded as mutually exclusive systems of administration. In all civilised states they supplement one another, although their relative importance is hardly ever in two instances the same. It is a mistake to suppose that there is no self-government in Prussia, in France, or even in Russia. It is a mistake to suppose that bureaucracy does not play a great part in England. In fact the administration of a civilised state is so serious a task as to demand all the power of bureaucracy and self. government combined. The paid official has, or should have, the advantage in professional knowledge, professional skill, professional discipline, whilst the unpaid citizen has, or should have, the advantage in familiarity with local requirements, in local patriotism, and in freedom from technical prejudice and routine. An ideal system would make the unpaid citizen do as much work for the public as could be got out of him, and ensure his doing it properly by providing official information, supervision, and audit. A certain independence is necessary to make unpaid work attractive to able and honest men. On the other hand some duties can never be efficiently discharged by unpaid officers, because they need a special training and a special skill.
Administrative organisation admits of innumerable variations in detail. A certain similarity may nevertheless be noted in the administrative systems of states which are similar in extent and civilisation. In very small states the administrative system must necessarily have rather a municipal than an imperial character. Thus in the states of ancient Greece and of ancient and mediaeval Italy, we find administrative organisations suited to the wants of a single town (see CITY—ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL). When the state expanded beyond these dimensions a municipal had to be transformed into an imperial administration. The most striking instance of this process is afforded by the history of Rome. But in very large states the imperial and the municipal organisations are distinct from the first. The central administration is from the first contrasted with the local administration. Both, however, are servants and representatives of the state. Both exist in order to carry out its laws. Their separation is due to the necessities of public business. It is qualified by the superior power of the central as compared with that of the local authority, and of the sovereign as compared with both. Yet it is so important that each must be considered by itself.
Central Administration in modern Europe has had its root in the power of the monarch and has grown with the growth of that power. Thus in France the development of the central administration is almost co-extensive with the political history of the nation. In England, before the Conquest, there was hardly anything which could be called a central administration, although the local administration was tolerably complete. After the Conquest the nucleus of a strong administration was created by the Norman kings, who had to maintain their authority at once against a recently conquered people and a lawless feudal nobility. By the DOMESDAY survey the central government was, for the first time, informed of the population and resources of the kingdom. The taxes were
much augmented and the exchequer was organised for the business of collection and management. The circuits of the itinerant justices, at first designed as much for financial as for judicial business, began under Henry I. and were systematised by Henry II. By means of these circuits the central administrative authority was placed in direct contact with the local administrative authorities. Great works of architecture were executed at the royal expense. Mercenary armies were frequently employed. But the administration as yet concerned itself with a few comparatively simple matters. It was still indissolubly blended with the economy of the king's household. Throughout the Middle Ages public health, public communications, and police in so far as provided for, were in the hands of the local authorities. The local authorities enforced the many regulations respecting agriculture, manufactures, and trade, which were enacted either by themselves or by parliament. EDUCATION and the RELIEF of the poor were for the most part left to the care of the church. From the accession of the house of Tudor down to our own time the strength and activity of the central administration have constantly grown, but so gradually and irregularly that a summary account of the change is almost impossible. The following are the chief points which call for attention. During the 16th century the central administration is in the hands of the monarch and his privy council, whose power is seen rather in particular arbitrary acts than in a minute official interference with ordinary life. By the political revolution of the 17th century a prime minister depending on the House of Commons and a cabinet are substituted for the king and privy council as heads of the administration. The distinction between the CIVIL LIST (q.v.) and the rest of the public expenditure prepares the way for the ultimate total separation between the royal household and the central administration. At the same time the establishment, first of a regular navy, then of a regular army, and the growth of commerce and of colonies, involves the creation of new administrative departments. But every addition was made piecemeal, so that the central administration in the last century presented a scene of extraordinary confusion. In the 19th century, especially since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, the central administration has been almost completely transformed. At the accession of William IV. the civil list was so arranged as to complete the separation between the personal income of the monarch and the other public charges. The Poole LAW Amendment Act of 1834 established the poor law board, since developed into the local government board, a body which supervises and controls the great majority of local authorities. The modern legislation on public health, beginning with the act of 1848 and consolidated by the Public Health Act, 1875, is also en forced by the local government board. The Committee of Council of Education, established in 1839, became in virtue of the Education Act of 1870 an education department controlling the public elementary education of England. The military and naval departments have undergone, and are still undergoing, various modifications.