Daunton M. The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, Volume 3: 1840-1950
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
rather than by the requirements of administrative rationalism – established the
nature of local authorities in the Victorian state.
Victorian local authorities were thus expected both to speak for their com-
munities and to act for them, to be representative and executive bodies at the
same time. The characteristic Victorian argument was that significant executive
powers were necessary to attract ‘the best men’ into local government service.
By the end of the century this elitist aim had been augmented by the hope on
the municipal left – Webb’s ideal of – that local government could bring
about the democratic control of public services. The essential flaw in the
Victorian conception of local government – that the executive ideal implied
large service areas and substantial local administration, while representative aspi-
rations required small areas and minimal bureaucracy – remained concealed by
the voluntaristic nature of the nineteenth-century system. The scope for local
initiative in the Victorian municipal code was enormous. ‘Food, shelter, educa-
tion, work, leisure, wholesome amusement, a living wage, security against
poverty, provision for old age, and all other necessities can be made certain for
all by use of existing powers’, claimed a writer in , going on to argue that
a town council could constitute itself a friendly society executive, or become a
cooperative society, a life assurance society or a loan society,
116
but relatively few
local powers were mandatory. There was little to restrain an ambitious author-
ity but equally little to chastise a sluggish one: tolerance of service disparities was
built into the Victorian system. These disparities were accentuated by the inad-
equacies of first-tier reform in . The Tories’ deference to existing boundar-
ies left the county map largely untouched. Their deference to their rural
supporters dissuaded them from any attempt to link town and country. Their
preference for gentry government prompted their attempt to make the shire
counties the principal local authorities, which was then thwarted in the
Commons by the piecemeal creation of county boroughs.
The result was a system ill equipped to handle the government growth of the
twentieth century, as national politicians interested themselves in the social pol-
itics that had previously been a local preserve, and the state and the public
became less tolerant of local shortcomings. The growing burden of mandatory
powers accentuated rate disparities between individual authorities and, in
general, between urban and rural bodies. Highly rated county boroughs sought
to absorb the suburbs beyond their boundaries, while the neighbouring county
authorities sought just as eagerly to retain them. Small boroughs resisted amal-
gamation with larger ones and steered clear even of cooperation in joint com-
mittees for fear of inviting amalgamations.
117
The term ‘buffer states’, applied to
the communities lying between Leeds and Bradford in the amalgamation
John Davis
116
H. B. S., ‘What an urban councillor might do’, Municipal Reformer and Local Government News,
Feb. .
117
Lipman, Local Government Areas, p. .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
proposals, was an appropriate metaphor of war.
118
Local authorities presented an
unedifying image in the s. Consumed by particularistic squabbles over
boundaries, hostile to new powers, increasingly parsimonious in the exercise of
the powers they did possess, resistant to the equalisation proposed in and
to regional reconstruction which might have strengthened the system, they
appeared beyond reform.
It was thus unsurprising that Sidney Webb’s heirs abandoned his faith in local
government as the agents for the socialisation of Britain. In Webb had seen
the steady growth of municipal enterprise – towns with municipal gas,
with municipal trams, etc. – as evidence of the progressive displacement of cap-
italism by social collectivism.
119
By the s, though, two-thirds of Britain still
depended upon private companies for gas, and while ‘excellent hospitals have
been provided by some of the larger local authorities . . . the country relies
largely on the voluntary hospitals’.
120
The AMC’s Special Conference on Local
Government in heard many Labour councillors argue that ‘local govern-
ment has failed to meet up to the ordinary economic needs of the masses of the
people’.
121
A Southampton councillor claimed that ‘the war has advanced local
government twenty years and local government is not ready to accept it’. A
Poplar delegate reminded her audience that ‘Poplar people went to prison over
the Poor Law and we were very glad to get rid of the Poor Law to a central
authority. The people have been very much better served because there was
much more money in the pool.’
122
That their views were broadly shared by the Minister of Health, Aneurin
Bevan, is suggested by Bevan’s impatience with the Boundary Commission and
his eventual proposal, in October , for a complete overhaul of local govern-
ment. Bevan envisaged abandoning the very premises of the Victorian system.
He proposed a network of all-purpose authorities, two-thirds of them with
populations of , or fewer. Their boundaries were drawn so as to ensure
that the majority of the population lived within miles ( km) – and almost
nobody more than miles ( km) – from the administrative centre, and to
combine urban and rural districts.
123
The representative ideal was paramount: ‘to
Central government and the towns
118
See, e.g., the report on the Bradford proposals by R. G. Hetherington in PRO HLG//.
119
Webb, Socialism in England, p. .
120
C. E. P. Stott, ‘The gas industry in relation to local authorities’, appendix to Report of AMC
Special Conference on Local Government, / Sept. , p. , in AMC minutes, ;
‘Regionalism, digest of evidence given at an enquiry held by the solicitor general, Part II – reor-
ganization of local government areas’, p. .
121
Report of AMC Special Conference on Local Government, / Sept. , p. , AMC
minutes, . Quotation from Jack Braddock of Liverpool.
122
Report of AMC Special Conference on Local Government, / Sept. , pp. –, , in
AMC minutes, .
123
Cabinet Committee on Local Government, ‘Organisation of all-purpose authorities in England
and Wales. Memorandum by the Minister of Health, October, ’, PRO CAB//.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
revive and maintain local government as a form of government which is truly
local, which is near to the people and in which they will take an interest’. The
new bodies’ powers were made contingent upon this aim. Powers would be tail-
ored to areas, and ‘if a particular service requires that these units should every-
where be made larger, it must be because that service is fundamentally not of a
kind which can properly be run by elected local government bodies’.
124
It is not difficult to envisage the obstacles which Bevan’s proposals would have
encountered, but in the event they were shelved with the approach of the
general election. As a result the system survived for another quarter century.
Local authorities became, increasingly, agents of the central welfare state, their
incapacity offset by central subsidies which covered over per cent of local
expenditure by the s. This state of affairs had not, in the main, been pro-
duced by central malevolence towards local pluralism, but it did leave local
authorities vulnerable to attack in the s from a national government critical
of the welfare state, committed to the reduction of public expenditure and dis-
posed to see local government as a sinister interest. Ironically, it had been the
Conservatives in local government, inclined to associate Attleeian socialism with
an intrusive Whitehall bureaucracy, who had predicted this danger in the s.
Aware of the growing legislative habit of conferring open-ended powers upon
ministers,
125
the Tory councillors at the AMC’s conference reminded their
audience that the war had been fought for the values of democracy and plural-
ism. The warning voiced by a non-county borough delegate at the AMC’s
conference was typical: ‘One of the speakers has just said that we could not have
government without local authorities . . . You have only to look around the
world today and find that efforts are being made to govern countries without
local authorities, and we want to avoid that by all means in this country.’
126
The
speaker was Alderman Roberts, mayor of Grantham.
127
John Davis
124
Ibid., paras. , ; Owen, ‘Defending the county?,’ pp. –.
125
E.g. the broad definition of the ministers’ powers in the Education Act (s. ()) and the
Water Act (s. ) and, later, the ascription to the home secretary of an unspecified duty of
‘general guidance’ of local authorities under the Children’s Act: ‘it was thought desirable
(by someone) to emphasise the subordinate position which local children authorities were
expected to adopt’ – J. A. G. Griffith, Central Departments and Local Authorities (London, ),
pp. –.
126
Report of AMC Special Conference on Local Government, / Sept. , p. , in AMC
minutes, .
127
Alderman Roberts’ daughter Margaret would marry Denis Thatcher in .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
·
·
The changing functions of urban government:
councillors, officials and pressure groups
.
M
– legal, administrative and physical – have
never been simple or fixed, shifting as the local and central polity
responded to the changing economic, social and demographic imper-
atives of the developing urban form. Thus, between and urban
governance in Britain was transformed from a system of locally initiated, semi-
private structures with very limited powers and scant state or democratic super-
vision, through an era of proliferating single purpose boards, to the powerful,
unified and democratically elected bodies which reshaped the urban environ-
ment in the early twentieth century. In the course of this transformation, local
government took on a bewildering array of powers; raised, borrowed and spent
thousands of millions of pounds; and ultimately employed an army of almost
million workers. Furthermore, this revolution was almost entirely the result of
local initiative, for whilst all local government powers had to be sanctioned by
parliament, the central state imposed few obligations on the municipalities. In
these circumstances service provision varied over time and place, with many
similar authorities playing very different roles in terms of utility provision, san-
itary improvement, slum clearance, housing, recreation facilities, poor relief
benefits or hospital management. This patchiness is usually attributed to the
inadequacies of local politicians who, despite the urgings of enlightened central
bureaucrats or passionate local socialists, skimped on expenditure in order to ease
the rates bill. However, this view has come under increasing scrutiny with revi-
sionists emphasising how much, not how little, was done, given the unequal dis-
tribution of resources across the country and the often unhelpful and centralising
tendencies of the national state.
Thus, to understand the development of local government in this period, it is
vital to understand local governors – both elected and administrative – how their
powers and composition changed over time, the framework within which they
operated and the pressures they faced from beyond the council chamber. The
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
object of this chapter, therefore, is to sketch out the structure of local govern-
ment – its changing form, expanding competence and variable financial regime
– and to relate this to the development of a cadre of professional municipal
officials, the changing social and political profile of the borough council and the
relations of both these groups with the extensive range of pressure groups and
voluntary organisations operating in the urban sphere in the course of this period.
Though urban governance for most of the nineteenth century was a patchwork
of often competing boards, commissions, private companies and voluntary pro-
viders, this chapter will concentrate on the activities of the borough councils
which for most of the period were the dominant bodies in local politics.
(i) ,
Prior to , urban government was in the hands of unreformed corporations,
the traditional rural institutions of parish, vestry and county bench, and an array
of improvement commissions created to execute local improvement acts. In
terms of the competence of urban governance, the Municipal Corporations Act
of was largely symbolic, most of the challenges of urbanisation being met
by a range of elected single purpose authorities for poor relief, burial, health,
highways and schools, with rate levying powers and overlapping functions,
authority and boundaries. Although towns like Liverpool utilised local acts to
consolidate control of many of these functions in the hands of the council,
1
in
general it was, as Lord Goschen noted, a chaotic system.
2
The situation was even
worse in London, where the Corporation (excluded from the act) refused
to exercise its rights beyond the square mile. Responsibility for good govern-
ment rested with some local commissioners and vestries and the
Metropolitan Police until the establishment in of the indirectly elected
Metropolitan Board of Works, charged with improving the capital’s infrastruc-
ture, and the London School Board in . In addition, across Britain local
authorities entered into joint ventures to run capital projects, especially docks,
ports and harbours, and acquired powers to regulate various private activities for
social or public health reasons.
3
The single purpose system came under attack from the early s, culminat-
ing in the Local Government Act of which created new multi-purpose
authorities with clearly delineated powers, most major towns becoming auton-
omous county boroughs, whilst London was unified through the London
County Council. A structured system of government for the non-borough areas
Barry M. Doyle
1
D. Fraser, Power and Authority in the Victorian City (Oxford, ), p. .
2
P. Waller, Town, City and Nation (Oxford, ), p. .
3
J. Kellett, ‘The “commune”in London: trepidation about the LCC’, History Today, (May ),
; M. Falkus, ‘The development of municipal trading in the nineteenth century’, Business History,
().
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
followed in , with a second tier for London in when twenty-eight
metropolitan boroughs were created. Yet these reforms did not necessarily lead
to a rational system, especially in areas such as Lancashire, which remained a
hotchpotch of incomplete and competing fiefdoms. Furthermore, the new
system left education and poor relief outside the control of the multi-purpose
authorities, the former passing to the counties in , whilst the latter had to
await the Local Government Act of , which heralded the apotheosis of
autonomous, multi-purpose local government.
4
The enormous changes which
occurred in urban government as a result of the post-war reforms were not
reflected in the shape of local governance, with little interest shown in either
elected regional authorities, or bodies to manage the substantial conurbations in
industrial areas.
Municipal power expanded enormously, but unevenly, between and
as the responsibility for seeking, adopting and executing power usually
remained with the locality through one of four routes: general obligatory legis-
lation; local improvement acts; adoption of permissive sections of national leg-
islation; and, later, Local Government Board orders. Obligatory powers, most
accompanied by the carrot of central subsidy and the stick of inspection,
increased markedly from the s, culminating after as nationalised ser-
vices delivered by regional boards replaced ‘municipal socialism’ in many areas
of service provision.
5
Yet despite this ‘the large majority of municipal powers in
were still the result of local initiative’,
6
giving urban governors consider-
able discretion over which services they provided. Local improvement acts,
simplified by general clauses acts, were employed for a wide range of purposes,
often conferring novel rights to provide services, control nuisances or execute
extensive capital projects. But this route was not always taken as it was expen-
sive, time-consuming and hazardous as parliamentary committees could be
tough on bills which set uncomfortable precedents or offended powerful local
interests.
7
Those lacking the power or political will to innovate could draw on a
growing range of adoptive powers or Local Government Board Orders, which
sanctioned loans, capital projects or permissive services via a local inquiry. For
most of the period, therefore, the central state was a facilitator, creating the con-
ditions under which municipalities operated, extending cash or credit, but rarely
The changing functions of urban government
4
There are many accounts of the structural changes in local government including above, pp.
‒; Waller, Town, ch. ; B. Keith-Lucas, English Local Government in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries (London, ).
5
For a summary of the legislation affecting local government in see ‘Local government in
: review of the chief events of the year’, in The Municipal Yearbook and Public Utilities Manual,
(London, ), p. xliii.
6
J. Garrard, ‘Local power in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century’, University of Salford
Occasional Papers in Politics and Contemporary History, (n.d. []), .
7
Ibid., ; J. R. Kellett, ‘Municipal socialism, enterprise and trading in the Victorian city’, UHY
(), –.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
compelling action. Local authorities utilised these powers to extend services and
regulation in five main areas: public safety, environmental control, the welfare of
children, culture, recreation and leisure, and commercial services. Furthermore,
the importance of each of these areas changed over time as local government
moved from policing the people and their environment towards providing
general services for the whole community.
Public safety, the driving force in early local government, included all means
designed to protect the individual, especially the middle-class ratepayer, from the
dangers inherent in the urban environment. Policing was central to the ‘reform
period’, with the Metropolitan Police Act of and the New Poor Law of
followed by the Municipal Corporation Act of which required
borough councils to establish watch committees and police forces. The County
and Borough Police Act of , made policing compulsory, instituting a process
of centralisation through inspection sweetened by state funding.
8
Concern with
policing was prompted by a desire to control the chaotic urban environment and
elevate, socially and morally, the new town dwellers. Thus boroughs charged
their police with ‘the monitoring and suppression of popular activities and rec-
reations considered conducive to immorality, disorder, or crime’,
9
many urban
authorities utilising local acts to suppress or control animal fighting, indecency,
brothels, dancing and gambling.
10
The later nineteenth century saw a shift in
emphasis from the general policing of working-class activities to a concerted
assault on clearly identified deviant groups – prostitutes, drunkards, habitual
criminals – whilst after they acquired extensive new powers and respon-
sibilities with the advent of the motor car. Yet despite these changes the police-
man’s main duties remained ensuring an orderly urban environment and policing
the morals and pastimes of the working class.
11
From the early s public safety increasingly included public health, a
significant minority of local authorities seeking powers to control housing, san-
itation and improve public cleanliness. Although the Public Health Act of
helped to create a compulsory structure, sanitary improvement was often deter-
mined by older methods, including the common law
12
and local acts, whilst the
system as a whole left too much to local initiative and too many places excluded
– in particular London and Scotland. However, universality and compulsion
were extended by a series of acts between and which imposed sani-
tary inspectors and a uniform system of sanitary districts. Early hospital provision
Barry M. Doyle
18
D. Taylor, The New Police in Nineteenth-Century England (Manchester, ), p. ; C. Elmsley,
The English Police, nd edn (London, ).
19
R. D. Storch, ‘The policeman as domestic missionary: urban discipline and popular culture in
northern England, –’, in R. J. Morris and R. Rodger, eds., The Victorian City (Harlow,
), p. .
10
Ibid.; Keith-Lucas, English Local Government, p. .
11
J. White, ‘Police and people in London in the s’, Oral History, ().
12
C. Hamlin, ‘Muddling in bumbledom: on the enormity of large sanitary improvements in four
British towns, –’, Victorian Studies, (–), .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
– poor law infirmaries, asylums for pauper lunatics and fever and isolation hos-
pitals
13
– was also part of the wider municipal policing function, providing pro-
tection to the community not the individual, by segregating those who posed a
moral, social or physical threat. However, the meaning of public health changed
after , with a greater emphasis on education and prevention. Medical
Officers of Health (MOHs) began to tackle infant mortality and TB,
Huddersfield opening a milk depot for poor mothers as early as , whilst
eugenic concerns following the First World War prompted the establishment of
clinics for mother and infant welfare and venereal diseases.
14
The right to provide
acute general hospitals was extended to the municipalities in , when control
of the poor law medical facilities was transferred to Public Assistance
Committees. Municipal medicine flourished in the London area and the North-
West, but facilities varied greatly as some authorities placed stress on providing
services for mothers and children, rather than general hospitals.
15
Overlapping with the concern for public safety was the need to provide and
maintain a satisfactory urban infrastructure. Public health related amenities, such
as cemeteries, sewers and drains, were a major element in municipal expenditure,
as was the provision of water, with the vast majority of urban water supplied by
municipalities by .
16
Many councils promoted major capital projects, coastal
towns redeveloping their ports and harbours, whilst resorts like Brighton built
sea defences, promenades and pleasure grounds. Developments in transport
prompted spectacular interventions, like Manchester’s controlling interest in the
Manchester Ship Canal, whilst motor cars created novel problems with traffic
flow and parking, necessitating a different approach to road building. From the
mid-nineteenth century, through by-laws and general legislation, councils were
able to regulate and demolish housing, facilitating major slum clearance projects
which saw insanitary dwellings replaced by impressive commercial or civic build-
ings reflecting the power and prestige of the locality.
17
However, housing and
slum clearance legislation from onwards provided a framework for munic-
ipal intervention in the housing market, making many interwar local authorities
the main residential developer in their area. Councils erected almost . million
The changing functions of urban government
13
V. Berridge, ‘Health and medicine’, in F. M. L. Thompson, ed., The Cambridge Social History of
Britain, –, vol. : Social Agencies and Institutions (Cambridge, ), p. ; S. Cherry,
Medical Services and the Hospitals in Britain, – (Cambridge, ).
14
H. Jones, Health and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain (London, ), chs. and ; H. Marland,
‘A pioneer in infant welfare: the Huddersfield scheme, –’, Social History of Medicine,
(), –.
15
Cherry, Medical Services, table ., p. ; M. Powell, ‘Did politics matter? Municipal public health
in the s’, UH, (), –; M. Powell, ‘An expanding service: municipal acute med-
icine in the s’, Twentieth Century British History, (), –.
16
R. Millward and S. Sheard, ‘The urban fiscal problem, –: government expenditure and
finances in England’, Ec.HR, nd series, (), ; Waller, Town, p. .
17
A. Mayne, The Imagined Slum (Leicester, ); H. Carter and C. R. Lewis, An Urban Geography
of England and Wales in the Nineteenth Century (London, ), pp. –.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
new homes by , creating a new style of residential development as well as
massively increasing the estates and debts of the average municipality.
18
As post-
war legislation removed many services from the hands of town hall, reshaping the
urban environment became the key interest of municipal politicians and profes-
sionals.
Education also began as a form of policing but gradually developed into a
general service by the s. The Education Act of , which empowered
locally elected school boards to provide elementary schools, signalled the start of
compulsory state funded education, but it was the Education Act of which,
by transferring responsibility to the county boroughs and county councils, made
education the central plank in local authority provision in the twentieth century.
In addition to compulsory elementary education, the new Local Education
Authorities (LEAs) could supply or support other forms of schooling, furnish
meals for the necessitous and arrange medical services, gradually developing a
secondary sector, including grammar schools and modern schools, to teach both
academic and technical and practical subjects. Furthermore, from the later nine-
teenth century, councils began providing technical education aimed at improv-
ing the skills base of the local workforce, often working with employers to
develop relevant day release classes, as occurred in the Norwich footwear indus-
try.
19
The Education Act of replaced elementary education, with general
primary and selective, tripartite secondary schooling, a system which appeared
to signal the culmination of the process of providing education for all.
20
Prior to their involvement in formal education, local authorities had begun
to provide rational recreations, including parks, museums and libraries facilitated
by permissive legislation of the s and s. Although few boroughs made
use of the legislation, the majority of ratepayers being of the opinion that
funding the leisure or improvement of the poor was not their business, the leg-
islation did acknowledge that ‘the provision of cheap, improving leisure-time
facilities should be a public municipal affair’. Furthermore, a number of local
authorities did act to open museums (Norwich, ), libraries (Manchester and
Liverpool, ) and swimming baths and lay out urban parks such as those in
Birmingham and Bristol, which reflected civic pride and provided amenities for
rational recreation.
21
But municipalities soon diversified into entertainment,
especially in the Edwardian period,
22
and sporting facilities, with substantial
growth in the provision of football and cricket pitches and the operation of com-
Barry M. Doyle
18
J. Burnett, A Social History of Housing, –, nd edn (London, ), ch. .
19
B. M. Doyle, ‘Modernity or morality? George White, Liberalism and the nonconformist con-
science in Edwardian England’, Historical Research, (), –.
20
E. Royle, Modern Britain:A Social History, – (London, ), pp. –.
21
Ibid., pp. –.
22
R. Roberts, ‘The corporation as impresario: the municipal provision of entertainment in
Victorian and Edwardian Bournemouth’, in J. K. Walton and J. Walvin, eds., Leisure in Britain,
– (Manchester, ), pp. –.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
mercial venues, like Doncaster racecourse. The interwar period saw the ‘far
greater municipalization of leisure’, the Physical Training and Recreation Act of
advancing local authorities almost £ million for sporting facilities, whilst
the development of municipal parks was accompanied by an ideological shift
towards user-friendly spaces with pitches, gardens and boating lakes. Provision
for middle-class activities like tennis and golf multiplied,
23
as did libraries and
their use, whilst services for children expanded, including summer camps and
playgrounds in parks. This increasing municipal involvement in fun was most
obvious in seaside towns, but it reflected a general trend away from improving
rational recreation for the working-class adult, towards leisure facilities for all
members of the community irrespective of age or class.
The scale of municipal involvement in commercial activities between
and was quite extraordinary, facilitated by a group of general acts and a
huge raft of local initiatives. Councils were active in the development and pro-
vision of utilities and transport – gas, electricity, trams, buses, ferries – as well as
the regulation of these services in private hands, with most large towns control-
ling at least one by ; the provision of markets and possession of certain tra-
ditional privileges and enterprises – such as Colchester’s oyster fishery – and the
operation of other enterprises which were certainly not necessities, including
municipal banks and civic restaurants. Most of these concerns were profitable,
yet the willingness to embark on municipal trading ventures varied greatly across
the country, determined by the need to bolster weak rate income, the balance
of costs versus perceived income, the social and political complexion of the
council, local boosterism and the willingness of parliament to sanction novel
trading ventures.
24
This expansion in services produced a remarkable rise in local authority
expenditure, which increased thirtyfold in eighty years, from £m in , to
£m in –. As the major concerns of urban government changed, so did
the distribution of costs, away from basic ‘policing’ towards public health, edu-
cation and trading services, the proportion taken by poor relief falling from
– per cent prior to the First World War to a mere per cent in the later
s. On the other hand, there was a dramatic growth in the outlay on housing
between the wars, to around per cent of all spending in –, whilst public
health service costs rose rapidly in the s and s, and again after .
25
Education costs increased fortyfold between the early s and the late s,
but the greatest area of expenditure in the high period of local government was
The changing functions of urban government
23
S. G. Jones, Workers at Play (London, ), pp. –.
24
Falkus, ‘Development of municipal trading’; Kellett, ‘Municipal socialism’; E. P. Hennock,
‘Finance and politics in urban local government in England, –’, HJ, (), –;
W. H. Fraser, ‘Municipal socialism and social policy’, in Morris and Rodger, eds., Victorian City,
pp. –.
25
Millward and Sheard, ‘Urban fiscal problem’, –; Powell, ‘Expanding service’, .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008