English municipalities were sub jected to the same feudal oppression which the more prosperous towns on the Continent suffered. They were not at first incorporated and had few political or civil rights and little if any self-government. They were small in area and population. London which was the metropolis then as now had about 40,000 in habitants at the beginning of the 15th century. As feudalism lost its grip these towns or bor oughs became incorporated, and gained in power and independence usually because the extension of privileges made easier the collec tion of taxes by the feudal lord. It was for this mercenary reason that Edward I gave the English boroughs representation in the his toric national parliament called in 1295. The political power which the cities thus acquired was • of great potential value to the Crown in the struggle it was then waging with the nobles. The establishment of the rule that no corpora tion was lawful without royal sanction gave the Crown the chance it desired to dominate munic ipal affairs and control the selection of the borough representatives in Parliament. Find ing that popular elections afforded an uncer tain basis of control, the Crown finally built up a sufficiently subservient municipal organi zation by creating a mayor and council selected in the first instance by the king and endowed with the power of self-perpetuation. It was not until the passage of the Municipal Corpora tions Reform Act of 1835, made necessary by the inefficiency and corruption in municipal life, that English city government ceased to be oli garchical and took on the general form it now bears — that of a representative governing body holding office for short terms and elected by popular vote.
United States.—American municipal his tcry dates back to the chartered municipal cor porations established in the English colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries. The oldest of these charters seems to have been the one given to New York in 1686. The charters were granted by the provincial governors and in the main the government consisted of a popularly elected board of councilmen and aldermen and a mayor appointed by the governor. Although not originally subject to the control of the colo nial legislatures these municipalities finally became so and found itself under the neces sity of applying to the legislatures for addi tional grants of power, especially in the mat ter of taxation. After the American Revolu tion the state legislatures assumed that posi tion of complete supremacy over American cities which they have ever since held.
Relation Between the City and the Cen tral Government — England.— While cities are the organs for local self-government their functions do not end there, and the modern municipality finds itself bound to the state or nation within which it lies by a complex web of political, legal and governmental ties. The place of the city in the English administrative system may be sketched as follows: The city is a corporation created by Parliament. The municipality which desires a charter petitions for it and its netition is granted or rejected in accordance with a procedure which assures a fair consideration of the merits of the case. Needed amendments to the charter must be secured in the same way. The charters thus granted are similar in general outline but vary widely in the details of municipal organization and power. Powers are usually conferred upon English cities which are broad in scope and which create a system of local legislative au tonomy. While Parliament remains the ulti mate source of all English municipal authority there has never been a disposition on its part wantonly to interfere in the affairs of single cities after the fashion of American legisla tures. This is due partly to the control over and responsibility for legislation in Parliament which is centred in the cabinet, making °log rolling* and °pork-barrel* legislation impos sible; it is also due to the essential nature of English municipal organization, politics and tra ditions which have prevented the English city from becoming the prey of partisan exploitation. Not only does the English national government exercise legislative power over the English city in the manner described but it also exerts an administrative supervision over it. The most important agency for this central administrative control is the Local Government Board. In a wide range of matters connected with munic ipal debts, municipal ownership, poor relief, and health, it is necessary for the city to secure the approval of this board for its projects. Ad
ministrative supervision of English cities is not centralized in one department however, but the Board of Education, the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade and the Home Office have varying degrees of authority over the municipal activities falling within their respective juris dictions. The result of this central adminis trative control has been wholesome. There has been no serious infringement of municipal au tonomy but a valuable check on municipal ex travairance and inefficiency. The administrative agencies mentioned have been given wide pow ers and have been able to settle many of the questions of municipal administration and power which in the United States have been fertile sources of ill-advised interference by the legislature in municipal affairs. In short, the English system may be said to be one of legislative decentralization, in view of the whole legislative power given to English cities, and administrative centralization.
United In this country the oppo site principle prevails, that of legislative cen tralization and administrative decentralization. Many of the most serious abuses in American municipal life have been due to the practically unrestrained and frequently abused power of the State legislatures over cities. Only too fre quently has the American city been the prey of legislative exploitation and corruption. State legislatures have interfered in all kinds of municipal affairs. They have destroyed, en larged or abridged municipal charters; ex tended or narrowed boundary lines; abol ished municipal offices in order that those created to replace them might be available as party spoils; imposed upon cities burdensome debts against their will; bartered away munic ipal franchise privileges; and in countless ways contributed to the depravity and inefficiency which have too frequently been the shame of American cities. Among the efforts which have been made from time to time to prevent the abuses of special legislation affecting our cities the following may be mentioned : First, a gen eral prohibition of such special legislation. Practically every State now forbids the incor poration of cities except by general law. The criticism urged against forbidding all special legislation is that the prohibition, if broad enough to cover adequately the abuse of special legislation, does not leave power to deal with the peculiar problems of individual cities. Second, the classification of cities with the re quirement that laws must apply to all the cities of the same class. It has been found easy to create classifications in which each important city was in a group by itself. Third, general municipal codes, like that of Ohio in 1902, under which all cities are governed in accord ance with a general and uniform scheme. This plan has not been found elastic enough to meet the needs of cities of varying size. Fourth, the municipal veto, by which a city is given the right to ward off legislative interference. This veto may be absolute, as in the case of Chicago, or it may be merely suspensive, as in the case of the cities in the State of New York. Fifth, the optional charter plan. This creates a series of model charters providing different forms of city government suitable to varying municipal conditions. A city may select whichever form it chooses and be governed under it. Sixth, municipal home rule (q.v.), which is now corn monly regarded as the only adequate remedy for the evils of State interference in munici pal affairs. There is in the United States prac tically no State administrative control over cities. There are no State administrative agen cies which supervise municipal activities and there seems to be little disposition to create them. In a few instances there has been some degree of administrative supervision in the mat ters of education, health, civil service, elections, public utilities, and liquor sales, but these cases are very rare. There have been instances in which the State has taken direct charge of vari ous municipal functions, such as police protec tion, and operated them by state appointed offi cers, hut this is very different from central ad ministrative supervision over municipal activi ties. It is possible that some scheme compar able to the one in England already described would aid us in the solution of some of our problems of municipal administration.