The Kansas University Quarterly

by Various

2. EUROPEAN CITIES.

For the purpose of comparison, some study should be made of municipal government abroad. Dr. Albert Shaw gives a general view of “Municipal Government in Great Britain,” in Notes Supplementary to the Johns Hopkins Studies, No. 1, January, 1889, and in the Political Quarterly, June, 1886, vol. 4, pp. 197-229. Of larger works on English municipal history, mention may be made of J. R. S. Vine’s “English Municipal Institutions; their Growth and Development from 1835 to 1879,” London, 1879. Dr. Chas. Gross has printed a very complete “Classified List of Books relating to British Municipal History,” Cambridge, 1891, as No. 43 of Bibliographical Contributions of Harvard University. Foreign experience is of very little assistance in the solution of the general problem of municipal government in the United States, but it may be useful in indicating improved methods of administration in particular departments of a city government. Several cities that illustrate different forms of municipal government may be taken as examples.

a. London.

Specially excepted from the operation of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. For outline of government read Chalmers, chap. 10. For full description see J. F. B. Firth’s Municipal London, 1876, and his Reform of London Government and of City Guilds, “Imperial Parliament” Series, London, 1888. For history of the corporation consult W. J. Loftie’s History of London, 2d ed., 1884, and the same author’s small work, London, published in 1887 in Freeman’s series on “English Historic Towns.” Both books are based on new material, part of it recently discovered by Bishop Stubbs. For additional references, see Gomme, pp. 122-134.

There have been a great many articles on the municipal government of London in recent periodical literature. Among them may be cited those by W. Newall, Contemporary Review, 1873, vol. 12, p. 73, and 1875, vol. 25, p. 437; W. M. Torrens, Nineteenth Century, 1880, vol. 8., p. 766; Alderman Cotton, Benj. Scott, City Chamberlain, and Sir Arthur Hobhouse in Contemporary Review, 1882, vol. 41, pp. 72, 308, and 404 respectively; the Westminster Review, for January, 1887; Dr. Albert Shaw on “How London is Governed,” in the Century, November, 1890, vol. 41, pp. 132-147, and on “Municipal Problems of New York and London,” in the Review of Reviews, April, 1892, vol. 5, p. 282; James Monroe on “The London Police,” in the North American Review, November, 1890, vol. 151, pp. 615-629; Sir John Lubbock on “The Government of London,” in the Fortnightly Review, February, 1892, vol. 51, p. 159; and an article on the “Municipal Administration of London,” in the Edinburgh Review for April, 1892. For a good review of attempts since 1860 to regulate the London gas supply, see an article in the British Quarterly for January, 1879.

A Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies reported May 28, 1884. See the discussion by Sir R. A. Cross, one of the dissenting members of the Commission, in the Nineteenth Century for 1884, vol. 16, p. 47, and by Sir Arthur Hobhouse in Contemporary Review for 1885, vol. 47, p. 1. The most important work on the London guilds is William Herbert’s “History of the Twelve Great Companies of London,” London, 1837. The latest contribution to the subject is Price’s “Description of the Guildhall,” London, 1887.

b. Paris.

A sketch of its government by Yves Guyot, a member of the municipal council, may be found in the Contemporary Review, March, 1883, vol. 43, p. 439. Dr. Shaw gives an excellent short account in an article entitled “The Typical Modern City” in the Century, July, 1891, vol. 42, pp. 449-66. He cites as the principal authority on the subject Maxime Du Camp’s Paris, ses organes, ses fonctions, et sa vie dans la seconde moitie du dix-neuvieme siecle. An extended description is also given in a work entitled Administration de la Ville de Paris, written by Henri De Pontich under the direction of Maurice Block, Paris, Guillaumin, 1884. The Rapports et Documents and Process-Verbaux of the municipal council are printed yearly in three large quarto volumes, and the municipal bureau of statistics issues an annual report.

c. Berlin.

An excellent short account of the government of Berlin is given by Dr. Rudolph Gneist, a member of the municipal council since 1848, in the Contemporary Review, December, 1884, vol. 46, p. 769. See also the report on the “Administration of the City of Berlin” in Foreign Relations for 1881, p. 487, made by Assistant-Secretary of Legation Coleman at the request of Hon. Andrew D. White, then Minister to Germany. Also the articles by Prof. R. T. Ely in the Nation for March 23 and 30, 1882, vol. 34, pp. 145 and 267. In the Nation for September 25, 1892, vol. 55, p. 221, Mr. Leo S. Rowe combats some of Dr. Shaw’s generalizations respecting municipal government in Europe, taking Berlin as his text. The Magistracy of Berlin publish reports at irregular intervals. The first, Bericht ueber die Vervaltung der Stadt Berlin, in den Jahren 1829 bis inclu. 1840, Berlin, 1842, and the second, in den Jahren 1841 bis incl. 1850, Berlin, 1853, are of considerable importance. A third, published in 1863, covers the period from 1851 to 1860, and a fourth, printed in 1882, covers the period from 1861 to 1876. The Director of the Statistical Bureau of the city publishes annually Das Statistische Jahrbuch der Stadt Berlin.