(d) Relation to the central authority. This relation differs widely not only in different states but in the same state at different times, or with respect to different classes of local authority. Thus in England the control of the central authority has usually been less strict than in France. In England there was hardly any effective control of local administrative bodies by a central authority, until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. The poor law commission first, and afterwards the local government board, have exercised over the union authorities a pretty complete control. It has been said that the only question with respect to which a board of guardians has any real discretion is that of granting or refusing applications for relief. The municipal corporations on the other band, especially those of the largest boroughs, have retained a real independence.
The central administrative authority may influence the local administration in one or more of the following ways : (a) By collecting, preserving, and circulating statistical and other information useful for administrative purposes ; (b) by enacting rules to guide the local authority ; (c) by periodical inspection or constant supervision to ensure the observance of these rules ; (d) by periodical audit of the accounts of the local authority. The means of enforcing this control are various. The extreme penalty for disobedience is the dissolution of the offending local authority. In England a board of guardians may be dissolved by order of the local government board, but a municipal corporation cannot be dissolved by any merely administrative authority. A lighter penalty is the withholding either altogether or in part of grants of money, ordinarily made by the central to the local authority. Thus a school board in England obtains the government grant only in so far as the education given by it satisfies the education department.
III. Relation of the Administrative Organisation to (a) the sovereign person or body of persons ; (b) the individual citizen. The sovereign in each state will necessarily control the administration, but this will be effected in different ways. Under the older form of constitutional monarchy the monarch made laws by the advice of his parliament and carried on the administration by the help of his council. The ministers were his ministers, and through them he controlled every branch of the administration. At the same time he depended on his parliament for the necessary funds, and his ministers were liable to parliamentary impeachment. Under the later form of constitutional monarchy, the prime minister takes the place of the king and the cabinet takes the place of the privy council. The prime minister and
cabinet owe their power to the support of the majority in the more popular house of the legislature. Thus that house which is virtually sovereign has a direct control over the administration. Most modern republics are organised on the model of constitutional monarchy. In the United States the president is perhaps more influential in the administration than was formerly the king of England. The ministers are his ministers and do not even sit in congress. In France the president takes the place of a modern king of England, the prime minister is the real ruler of the state, and he and his cabinet hold office at the pleasure of the majority in the chamber of deputies. In despotic monarchies the monarch has sole control of the administration, unchecked either by a power of withholding supplies or by a power of impeachment residing in a representative body.
The relation of the administrative system to the individual citizen differs in different countries according to the nature of the authority empowered to decide upon their respective rights and duties. In many despotic states of a rude type administrative and judicial functions are united in the hands of the monarch and the provincial governors. Under this system there can be little protection for the individual citizen. In the despotic states of civilised Europe the administrative and judicial organisations were usually kept distinct, but acts done in the course of administration were placed under a special law administered by special tribunals, and in many cases action could not be taken before these tribunals without the previous sanction of the government. In France this system survived many revolutions and has but recently been modified. It is also found more or less developed in many other continental states. In England a special administrative law and special administrative tribunals are unknown. Every branch of the public service has its own regulations and discipline, but these affect only its members. Every administrative authority stands in the position of a private person empowered by law to discharge certain special functions. Acts done in the course of administration are on the footing of all other acts. If a policeman uses excessive violence in taking a prisoner to the police station, or if a collector of taxes exceeds his lawful powers, redress is afforded by the ordinary courts of justice applying the same laws and observing the same procedure as in any other case of assault or of extortion. So too the rights and duties of any government department or local authority are determined like those of any private individual.