ished delinquencies in the use of them. The principal judge was the recorder, who, as we have just seen, was one of the corporation. The aldermen, assistants, and constables were elected annually by the people; but the mayor and sheriff were appointed by the governor. The recorder, town-clerk, and clerk of the market were to be appointed by the king, but in case the king neglected to act, these appointments also were made by the governor. The high constable was appointed by the mayor, the treasurer by the mayor, aldermen, and assistants, who seem to have answered to the ordinary common council. The mayor, recorder, and aldermen, without the assistants, were a judicial body, and held a weekly court of common pleas. When the assistants were added, the whole became a legislative body empowered to enact by-laws. Although this charter granted very imperfect powers of self-government, the people contrived to live under it for a hundred and thirty-five years, until 1821. Before the Revolution their petitions succeeded in obtaining only a few unimportant amendments.1 When the British army captured the city in September, 1776, it was forthwith placed under martial law, and so remained until the army departed in November, 1783. During those seven years New York was not altogether a comfortable place in which to live. After 1783 the city government remained as before, except that the state of New York assumed the control formerly exercised by the British crown. Mayor and recorder, town-clerk and sheriff, were now appointed by a council of appointment consisting of the governor and four senators. This did not work well, and the constitution of 1821 gave to the people the power of Especially in the so-called Montgomerie charter of 1730. choosing their sheriff and town-clerk, while the mayor was to be elected by the common council. Nothing but the appointment of the recorder remained in the hands of the governor. Thus nearly forty years after the close of the War of Independence the city of New York acquired self-government as complete as that of the city of London. In 1857, as we shall see, this self-government was greatly curtailed, with results more or less disastrous. ment in The next city governments to be organized in the American colonies, after that of New York, were those of Philadelphia, incorporated in 1701, and Annapolis, incorporated in 1708. These govern- City governments were framed after the wretched pat- Philadelphia tern then so common in England. In both (1701–1789). cases the mayor, the recorder, the aldermen, and the common council constituted a close self-electing corporation. The resulting abuses were not so great as in England, probably because the cities were so small. But in course of time, especially in Philadelphia as it increased in population, the viciousness of the system was abundantly illustrated. As the people could not elect the governing corporation or any of its members, they very naturally and reasonably distrusted it, and through the legislature they contrived so to limit its powers of taxation that it was really unable to keep the streets in repair, to light them at night, or to support an adequate police force. An attempt was made to supply such wants by creating divers independent boards of commissioners, one for paving and draining, another for street-lamps and watchmen, a third for town-pumps, and so on. In this way responsibility got so minutely parcelled out and scattered, and there was so much jealousy and wrangling between the different boards and the corporation, that the result was chaos. The public money was habitually wasted and occasionally embezzled, and there was general dissatisfaction. In 1789 the close corporation was abolished, and thereafter the aldermen and common council were elected by the citizens, the mayor was chosen by the aldermen out of their own number, and the recorder was appointed by the mayor and aldermen. Thus Philadelphia obtained a representative government. These instances of New York and Philadelphia sufficiently illustrate the beginnings of city government in the United States. In each case the system was copied from England at a time when city government in England was sadly demoralized. What was copied was not the free republic of London, with its noble traditions of civic honour and sagacious public spirit, but the imperfect republics or oligarchies into which the lesser English boroughs were sinking, amid the foul political intrigues and corruption which characterized the Stuart period. The government of American cities in our own time is admitted on all Traditions hands to be far from satisfactory. It is inof good gov- teresting to observe that the cities which had lacking. municipal government before the Revolution, though they have always had their full share of able and high-minded citizens, do not possess even the tradition of good government. And the difficulty, in those colonial times, was plainly want of adequate self-government, want of responsibility on the part of the public servants toward their employers the people. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. I. What was the origin of the casters and chesters that are found in England to-day ? 2. Trace the development of the English borough until it be came a kind of hundred. 3. Compare this borough with the hundred in the administration of justice. 4. Trace the further development of the borough in cases in which it became a county. 5. Illustrate this development with London, showing how the elements of the township, the hundred, and the shire government enter into its civic organization. 6. Explain the origin and the objects of the various guilds. 7. Speak of the "town guild" under the following heads :— a. Its composition and power. b. Its relation to citizenship. c. Its place of meeting. d. The aldermen. e. The common council. f. The chief magistrate. 8. Compare the government of London with that of Great Britain or of the United States. 9. Give some account of the lord mayor, the aldermen, and the councilmen of London. 10. Distinguish between London the city and London the metropolis. II. Show how the English cities and boroughs became bulwarks of liberty by (1) their facilities for obtaining justice, (2) the strength of their walls, and (3) the length of their purses. 12. Contrast the power of London with that of the throne. 13. What notable advance in government was made under the leadership of Simon de Montfort ? 14. What abuses crept into the government of many of the English cities? 15. What was the Puritan attitude towards such abuses? 16. Give an account of the government of New York city : a. The charter of 1686. b. The governing corporation. c. The public land. d. The city's privileges as a county. e. Officers by election and by appointment. f. Judicial functions. 17. Give an account of the government of Philadelphia:a. The governments after which it was patterned. b. The viciousness of the system adopted. c. The legislative interference that was thus provoked. d. The division of responsibility and the results of such division. e. The nature of the changes made in 1789. 18. Why are the traditions of good government lacking in the older American cities? Several fea tures of our ments. §3. The Government of Cities in the United States. At the present day American municipal governments are for the most part constructed on the same general plan, though with many variations in detail. There is an executive department, with the city govern- mayor at its head. The mayor is elected by the voters of the city, and holds office generally for one year, but sometimes for two or three years, and in St. Louis and Philadelphia even for four years. Under the mayor are various heads of departments, street commissioners, assessors, overseers of the poor, etc., - sometimes elected by the citizens, sometimes appointed by the mayor or the city council. This city council is a legislative body, usually consisting of two chambers, the aldermen and the common council, elected by the citizens; but in many small cities, and a few of the largest, such as New York, Brooklyn, Chicago, and San Francisco,there is but one such chamber. Then there are city judges, sometimes appointed by the governor of the state, to serve for life or during good behaviour, but usually elected by the citizens for short terms. All appropriations of money for city purposes are made by the city council; and as a general rule this council has some control over the heads of executive departments, which it exercises through committees. Thus there may be a committee upon streets, upon public buildings, upon parks or almshouses or what |