[Footnote 8:  Jameson, “The Municipal Government of New York,” Mag.  Amer.  Hist., vol. viii. p. 609.]

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.[9] 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 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.

[Footnote 9:  Especially in the so-called Montgomerie charter of 1730.]

[Sidenote:  City government in Philadelphia (1701-1789).] 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 governments were framed after the wretched pattern then so common in England.  In both 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.