21. In what sense is the word "parish" commonly used in the United States? Is the parish the same as the church? Has it any limits of territory?

22. In Massachusetts, clergymen were formerly paid out of the taxes of the township. How did this come about? In

this practice was there a union or a separation of church and state?

23. Ministers are not now supported by taxation in the United States. What important change in the parish idea does this fact indicate? Is it a change for the better?

24. Are women who do not vote represented in town government ?

25. Are boys and girls represented in town government?

26. Is there anybody in a town who is not represented in its government ?

27. How are citizens of a town represented in state govern

ment ?

28. How

are citizens of a town represented in the national government?

29. Imagine a situation in which the ballot of a single voter in a town might affect the action of the national government.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

§ 1. THE NEW ENGLAND TOWNSHIP. There is a good account in Martin's Text Book on Civil Government in the United States. N. Y. & Chicago, 1875.

§ 2. ORIGIN OF THE TOWNSHIP. Here the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, edited by Dr. Herbert Adams, are of great value. Note especially series I. no. i. E. A. Freeman, Introduction to American Institutional History; I., ii. iv. viii. ix.-x. H. B. Adams, The Germanic Origin of New England Towns, Saxon Tithing-Men in America, Norman Constables in America, Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem; II., x. Edward Channing, Town and County Government in the English Colonies of North America; IV., xi.-xii. Melville Egleston, The Land System of the New England Colonies; VII., vii.-ix. C. M. Andrews, The River Towns of Connecticut.

See also Howard's Local Constitutional History of the United States, vol. i. "Township, Hundred, and Shire," Baltimore, 1889, a work of extraordinary merit.

The great book on local self-government in England is Toulmin Smith's The Parish, 2d ed., London, 1859. For the ancient history of the township, see Gomme's Primitive Folk-Moots, London, 1880; Gomme's Village Community, London, 1890; Seebohm's English Village Community, London, 1883; Nasse's Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages, London, 1872; Laveleye's Primitive Property, London, 1878; Phear's Aryan Village in India and Ceylon, London, 1880; Hearn (of the University of Melbourne, Australia), The Aryan Household, London & Melbourne, 1879; and the following works of Sir Henry Maine: Ancient Law, London, 1861; Village Communities in the East and West, London, 1871; Early History of Institutions, London, 1875; Early Law and Custom, London, 1883. All of Maine's works are republished in New York. See also my American Political Ideas, N. Y., 1885.

Gomme's Literature of Local Institutions, London, 1886, contains an extensive bibliography of the subject, with valuable crit ical notes and comments.

CHAPTER III.

THE COUNTY.

§ 1. The County in its Beginnings.

Ir is now time for us to treat of the county, and we may as well begin by considering its origin. In treating of the township we began by sketching it in its fullest development, as seen in New England. With the county we shall find it helpful to pursue a different method and start at the beginning.

If we look at the maps of the states which make up our Union, we see that they are all divided into counties (except that in Louisiana the corresponding divisions are named parishes). The map of England shows that country as similarly divided into counties.

If we ask why this is so, some people will tell us that it is convenient, for purposes of administration, to have a state, or a kingdom, dicounties? vided into areas that are larger than single

Why do we have

towns. There is much truth in this. It is convenient. If it were not so, counties would not have survived, so as to make a part of our modern maps. Nevertheless, this is not the historic reason why we have the particular kind of subdivisions known as counties. We have them because our fathers and grandfathers had them; and thus, if we would find out the true reason, we may as well go back to the ancient times

when our forefathers were establishing themselves in England.

tribes.

We have seen how the clan of our barbarous ancestors, when it became stationary, was established as the town or township. But in those early times clans were generally united more or less closely into tribes. Among all primitive or barbarous races of men, so far as we can make out, society is organized in Clans and tribes, and each tribe is made up of a number of clans or family groups. Now when our English forefathers conquered Britain they settled there as clans and also as tribes. The clans became townships, and the tribes became shires or counties; that is to say, the names were applied first to the people and afterwards to the land they occupied. A few of the oldest county names in England still show this plainly. Essex, Middlesex, and Sussex were originally “East Saxons," "Middle Saxons," and "South Saxons; and on the eastern coast two tribes of Angles were distinguished as "North folk" and "South folk," or Norfolk and Suffolk. When you look on the map and see the town of Icklingham in the county of Suffolk, it means that this place was once known as the "home" of the "Icklings" or " children of Ickel,” a clan which formed part of the tribe of "South folk." In those days there was no such thing as a Kingdom of England; there were only these groups of tribes living side by side. Each tribe had its leader, whose title was ealdorman, or "elder man." After a while, as some tribes increased in size and power, their ealdormen took the title of kings. The little kingdoms coincided sometimes with a single shire, some

The English

nation, like

the Ameri

can, grew

out of the

union of

small states.

1 The pronunciation was probably something like yáwl-dor

man.

times with two or more shires. Thus there was a kingdom of Kent, and the North and South Folk were combined in a kingdom of East Anglia. In course of time numbers of shires combined into larger kingdoms, such as Northumbria, Mercia, and the West Saxons; and finally the king of the West Saxons became king of all England, and the several shires became subordinate parts or "shares" of the kingdom. In England, therefore, the shires are older than the nation. The shires were not made by dividing the nation, but the nation was made by uniting the shires. The English nation, like the American, grew out of the union of little states that had once been independent of one another, but had many interests in common. For not less than three hundred years after all England had been united under one king, these shires retained their self-government almost as completely as the several states of the American Union.1 A few words about their government will not be wasted, for they will help to throw light upon some things that still form a part of our political and social life. The shire was governed by the shire-mote (i. e. "meeting"), which was a representative ealdorman, body. Lords of lands, including abbots and priors, attended it, as well as the reeve and four selected men from each township. There were thus the germs of both the kind of representation that is seen in the House of Lords and the much more perfect kind that is seen in the House of Commons. After a while, as cities and boroughs grew in importance, they sent representative burghers to the shire-mote. There were two presiding officers; one was the ealdorman, who was now appointed by the king; the other was the shire-reeve (i. e. "sheriff "), who was still elected by the people and generally held office for life. 1 Chalmers, Local Government, p. 90.

Shire-mote,

and sheriff.