Extended research in London and Paris on the larger project of which this article is a part was generously assisted by a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship (1970–71) and by the State University of New York Research Foundation.

¹ For instance, see Botero, Giovanni, The Reason of State and the Greatness of Cities, translated by Peterson, Robert, 1606 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956);Google Scholar Vaughan, Robert, The Age of Great Cities (London: Jackson and Walford, 1843) pp. 1–3Google Scholar; Sjoberg, Gideon, The Preindustrial City (New York: The Free Press, 1960) chapters 5 and 8.Google Scholar

² ‘Megalopolis’ here refers demographically to each nation's ‘primary city’, metropolitan areas of over one million inhabitants. For discussion of the ‘rank-size’ problem see Browning, Harley L. and Gibbs, Jack (eds.), Urban Research Methods (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1967) pp. 436–59.Google Scholar

³ Sir Lewis Namier quoted from his Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (London: Macmillan, 1961) p. 166.Google Scholar Schlesinger, Arthur M. quoted from The Rise of the City, 1878–98 (New York: Macmillan, 1933) p. 302.Google Scholar On problems of rural-urban typologies see ‘Rural-Urban Differences’, and ‘Rural-Urban Inter-relationships’, in Browning, and Gibbs, , op. cit., pp. 462–575.Google Scholar One experiment in a closely related local-cosmopolitan typology is Wiebe's, Robert The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967).Google Scholar Some of the complexities alluded to in recent American urban history are illustrated by Frisch's, Michael ‘From Town to City: Springfield, Massachusetts and the Meaning of Community, 1840–1880’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Princeton University, 1967)Google Scholar and by many of the essays in such excellent collections as Handlin, Oscar and Burchard, John (eds.), The Historian and the City (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966)Google Scholar and Callow, Alexander, Jr. (ed.), American Urban History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969).Google Scholar Tilly's, Charles ‘The State of Urbanization: Review Article’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10 (1968) 100–13,CrossRefGoogle Scholar is insightful and provocative.

⁴ For a classic on urban statistics see Weber, Adna, The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967) pp. 44, 46–50, 70, 73, 447, 450, 453, 458, 465.Google Scholar Further items on population are in Brooks, Robert C., ‘Bibliography of Municipal Administration and City Conditions’, Municipal Affairs, 1:1 (1897) 227–30.Google Scholar

⁵ Ford is quoted from Bell, Aldon, London in the Age of Dickens (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1967) p. 44.Google Scholar James, Henry quoted from his The American Scene (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1946) pp. 73, 74, 115.Google Scholar Ellul's, Jacques phrase is from his The Technological Society, trans. Wilkinson, John (New York: Vintage Books, 1964) pp. xxv–xxvi;Google Scholar also see Ellul's, ‘The Technological Order’, Technology and Culture, 3 (Fall 1962) 394–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The final quote is cited from Josiah Strong, The Twentieth Century City (New York: 1898) p. 181.Google Scholar Strong probably borrowed it from Clarke, William, ‘The Life of the London Working Classes’, New England Magazine, 10 (1894) 572.Google Scholar

⁶ Useful studies are Lhomme, Jean, La Grande Bourgeoisie au pouvoir (1830–1880), (Paris: 1960);Google Scholar Daumard, Adeline, La Bourgeoisie parisienne de 1815 à 1848 (Paris: 1963);Google Scholar Cobban, Alfred, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (Cambridge: 1964);Google Scholar O'Boyle, Lenore, ‘The Middle Class in Western Europe, 1815–48’, The American Historical Review (hereafter AHR), 71 (04 1966) 826–45;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Morazé, Charles, The Triumph of the Middle Classes (New York: Anchor Books, 1968).Google Scholar Socialists rarely agreed that the middle classes composed more than 10 per cent of the U.S. population; see Spahr, Charles, An Essay on the Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1896);Google Scholar also works by King, Wellford, Atkinson, Edward, Streighthoff, F. H., Martin, Robert, and Kuznets, Simon on income distribution along with Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961)Google Scholar for an updating of statistics; and Mulhall, Michael, ‘The Rise of the Middle Classes’, Contemporary Review, 41 (1882) 325–34Google Scholar as well as his Industries and Wealth of Nations (London: Longmans Green, 1896).Google Scholar

⁷ British Sessional Papers: House of Commons. Report from the Commissioners on Municipal Corporations (England and Wales):Google Scholar London and Southwark, London Companies Session, 31 January-17 07 1837, vol. 25.Google Scholar Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Municipal Corporations of England and Wales: London and Southwark, London Companies. Convenient comments on these French figures is in Cilleuls, Alfred Des, Histoire de L'Administration Parisienne au XIX^e Siecle (2 vols. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1900) vol. 2, 79–84, 91–3, 123, 127–37, 186–7, 208–22, 613, 614–16.Google Scholar

⁸ Reluctance of business elements in the middle classes to participate in politics was noted everywhere: ‘There is a … satisfaction to me … perceiving that the business men of New York are at last taking an interest in their own public affairs; that you are at last taking an interest…before it is too late, in the law and administration which create opportunity or hamper enterprise. … The business man of America has been at a heavy discount of recent years…. The businessman alone has seemed to be paralyzed [politically]’, Root, Elihu, ‘The Business Men and the Constitutional Convention’, An Address, 03 25, 1915.Google Scholar O'Boyle, Lenore op. cit. (note 6) 829–30;Google Scholar and Yearley, C. K., The Money Machines (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1970)Google Scholar chapter 5, for convenient summations.

⁹ Sproat, John, The Best Men: Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968),Google Scholar makes this select republicanism, though by other words, clear; for nineteenth-century samplings see Parkman, Francis, ‘The Failure of Universal Suffrage’, North American Review, 151 (1890) 1–20,Google Scholar or Parton, James, ‘The Government of New York City’, North American Review, 103 (1866) 413–64,Google Scholar or, of course, the writings of Godkin, E. L. such as his Problems of Modern Democracy (New York: 1896)Google Scholar and Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy (Boston: 1898);Google Scholar typical of earlier discussions see Hansard, 69 (1899) 159–437Google Scholar and 67 (1899) 325–415; Journal Officiel (Chambre) ler semestre 1883, pp. 1503–12, 1600–3, 1648–51, 2109, 2241, 2243–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Quotation is from Hansard, 69 (1899) 215,Google Scholar debate on the London Government Bill. The Edwin Chadwick Collection, Correspondence in the University College, London is voluminous and relevant here; there is likewise a mass of source material on main drainage issues. But for samplings see Chadwick Collection, EC to Bishop of London, n.d. 1849Google Scholar and June 2, 1851; Lee, Wm. to EC, April 20, 1854Google Scholar; EC to Chas. Dilke, January 1, 1882Google Scholar; EC to Lord Herschell, July 1888Google Scholar; EC to Sir Wm. Harcourt, November 19, November 29, December 28, 1883Google Scholar; also see summary of arguments in Jebb, Richard, Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. Report to Viscount Palmerston, Upon the System of Drainage Pursued in the Metropolis (London: James Truscott, 1854);Google Scholar also Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers. Subterranean Survey of Sewers, 1848–52 and MCS, vol. 343 (1855)Google Scholar as well as materials on Surrey, and Kent, Commissioners of Sewers on technical debates, all in the Record Room of the Greater London Council, London.Google Scholar British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, 1847–48: Report from Commissioners, Metropolitan Sanitary Commission. Session 18 November-5 September 1848, vol. 32, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Reports. Minutes of Evidence.

¹¹ The Chadwick Collection of Pamphlets is in the British Museum.

¹² The James Beat Collection of correspondence is in the Records Room of the Greater London Council; vestry notes referred to here are in the Sidney Webb Collection, British Library of Political and Economic Science of the London School of Economic and Political Science.

¹³ On parish rate chiseling see Buckmaster, J. C., Local Government in Battersea: The Substance of an Address delivered by Buckmaster, J. C at a Meeting of Ratepayers.… 11 07 1867 (London: A. Chapman, 1867) pp. 1–14;Google Scholar and to sample the many other reports on taxation see British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, vol. 8 (1861),Google Scholar Report (First–Third) from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into Local Taxation and Government of the Local Administration of Justice. Session 6 February-6 August 1861; British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, vol. 8 (1870),Google Scholar Report from the Select Committee on Local Taxation together with Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix.

¹⁴ See, for instance, British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, vol. 30 (1884–1885).Google Scholar Reports. First Report. …The Housing of the Working Classes. (C-4402) Session 23 October 1884–14 August 1885; British Sessional Papers. House of Commons vol. 49 (1888).Google Scholar Reports … Seventeenth Annual Report of the Local Government Board (C-5526). Booth, Charles, The Life and Labour of the People in London (9 vols., London: Macmillan, 1892–1897) vol. II, 21;Google Scholar I, 33; Beames, Thomas, The Rookeries of London (London: Thomas Bosworth, 1852);Google Scholar Hill, Octavia, Homes of the London Poor (London: Macmillan & Co., 1883);Google Scholar Mearns, Andrew, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London (London: Andrew Mearns, 1883);Google Scholar Mayhew, Henry, London Labour and the London Poor (4 vols, London: 1861–1862);Google Scholar Masterman, C. F. G., The Condition of London (London: 1909);Google Scholar on Paris see Duveau, Georges, La Vie ouvriére en France sous le Second Empire (Paris: Gallimard, 1946) pp. 216–17Google Scholar citing Haussmann's estimate that of 1,700,000 inhabitants of Paris in 1865, 1,070,000 lived in poverty; also the old Maxime, Orléanist du Camp, Paris, Ses Organes, Ses Fontions, et sa Vie dans le seconde moitii du XIX^e; Siècle (5 vols., Paris: Hachette, 1875) vol. 5, chapter 24Google Scholar on Mont-de Piété; Paullian, Louis, Paris, Qui Mende, Mai et Remede (Paris: Ollendorf, 1893);Google Scholar Bompard, Raoul, ‘Le Bureau de Bienfaisance Central de Paris’, Revue Politique, 24 (05 10, 1900) 360–5;Google Scholar Carstens, C. C., ‘The Department of Public Outdoor Relief of Paris’, The Annals, 16 (07 1900) 167–70;Google Scholar Dawson, W. H., ‘The Municipality of Paris and the Unemployed’, Economic Journal, 8 (03 1898) 138–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar on New York see, New York State. Assembly. Report of the Tenement House Committee of 1894, Richard Gilder, Chairman, Assembly Doc. No. 37, 1894 (Albany: Lyon, 1894);Google Scholar DeForest, R. W. and Veiller, Lawrence (eds.), The Tenement House Problem (New York: 1903),Google Scholar which with its poverty map virtually summarizes findings of the tenement house committees of 1888, 1894, and 1900; Hunter, Robert, Poverty (New York: Macmillan, 1904);Google Scholar Riis, Jacob, How the Other Half Lives (New York: Sagamore Press, 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Masterman, , op. cit. (note 14) p. 121Google Scholar; Besant, Walter quoted from his London Life in the Nineteenth Century (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1909) p. 267;Google Scholar the Fabians are quoted from Thompson, Paul, Socialists, Liberals, and Labour: The Struggle for London, 1885–1914 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967) p. 138;Google Scholar Booth quoted from op. cit. (note 14) vol. 1, 177; background on Paris's unstable populations can be found in Chevalier, Louis, Classes Laborieuses et Classes Dangereuses à Paris pendant la Première Moitié du XIX^e Siècle (Paris: Libraire Plon, 1958);Google Scholar New York State. Assembly. Report of the Select Committee Appointed by the Assembly of 1875 to Investigate the Causes of the Increase of Crime in the City of New York, Assembly Doc. 106, February 17,1876; New York State. Assembly. Report of the Special Committee of the Assembly Appointed to Investigate the Public Offices and Departments of the City of New York and the Counties Therein Included… January 15,1900 (6 vols. Albany);Google Scholar New York State. Senate. Testimony Taken Before the Senate Committee on Cities Pursuant to the Resolution adopted January 20, 1890 (5 vols., Albany: 1891);Google Scholar and New York State. Senate. Report and Proceedings of the Senate Committee Appointed to Investigate the Police Department of the City of New York (5 vols., Albany: 1895).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Frederick Harrison Papers, MSS 1 3 (10), 4, 10, 14,Google Scholar in the Special Reading Room of the British Library of Political and Economic Science.

¹⁷ Josiah, Strong quoted from op. cit. (note 5) pp. 81–5,Google Scholar along with De Tocqueville, ; Harrison Papers, MSS 1–3 (10),Google Scholar ‘Jottings from my Memoirs’, 4. For similar strains of thought see Loomis, Samuel, Modern Cities and Their Religious Problems (New York: 1887) chapter 3;Google Scholar Morton, and White, Lucia: The Intellectual and the City (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962):Google Scholar enmities between Paris and the provinces are a commonplace of French history; aside from notes below see standard works on the Second Empire and Third Republic by Michael Curtis, Donald Harvey, Jean Joughin, Howard Payne, David Pinkney, David Thomson, Denis Brogan, Roger L. Williams, and Gordon Wright.

¹⁸ For background on restraints exercised over Paris see Cilleuls, Alfred Des, op. cit. (note 7)Google Scholar Introduction, ‘L'échevinage—L'administration intermédiaire’ pp. 1–134, and vol. 1 (Periode 1800–1830) 1–18, 334–40, sympathetic to Parisian independence, it is nonetheless detailed and accurate; the best short description of Paris's expansion is in Dickinson, Robert, The West European City (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963) pp. 223–35;Google Scholar on the theme Paris was France, see ‘L'empereur Charles-Quint disait du Paris de son temps: “Ce n'est pas une ville, c'est tout un monde” ‘ in Bellet, Daniel and Darville, Will, Ce Que Doit Etre La Cité Moderne (Paris: Libraire Bernard Tignol, 1914) p. 319;Google Scholar on Paris's leadership in republican communal autonomy against centralism see Greenberg's, Louis M. very useful, Sisters of Liberty: Marseille, Lyon, Paris and the Reaction to a Centralized State, 1868–71 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971) p. 6, also pp. 95–131;Google Scholar Lefèvre, André, Histoire de la Ligue d'Union républicaine des droits de Paris (Paris: G. Charpentier, 1881).Google Scholar

¹⁹ The moderate Republican historian was Hanotaux, Gabriel, Contemporary France (4 vols., Westminster: A Constable 1903–1909) vol. 1, 139, also 137, 188Google Scholar; best on the Commune are Williams, Roger L., The French Revolution of 1870–71 (New York: Norton, 1969);Google Scholar Jellinek's, Frank old but useful, The Paris Commune of 1871 (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1965);Google Scholar and Greenberg, whose interpretation I find most convincing. For an Orléanist view see Maxime, Du Camp's Les Convulsions de Paris (4 vols., Paris: 1878–1880);Google Scholar and for physical and social setting Poëte, Marcel, Une Vie de Cité Paris de sa Naissance à Nos Jours (3 vols., Paris: Auguste Picard, 1924–31) vol. 2, chapters 9, 10.Google Scholar

²⁰ Quotes are from Hanotaux, , op. cit., vol. I, 137, 139, 188.Google Scholar

²¹ Hatred of centralization noted in Ollivier, Albert, La Commune (1871) (Paris: Gallimard, 1939) p. 165;Google Scholar for general discussion see Greenberg, , op. cit. (note 18) pp. 95–131, also pp. 10–12; Thiers quoted from p. 105.Google Scholar

²² For background on these attitudes see, de Luçay, Le Comte, La Decentralisation (Paris: Librairie Guillaumin, 1895)Google Scholar Troisième partie, vol. 3, 61–94; Williams, Roger L., The World of Napoleon III, 1851–1870 (New York: The Free Press, 1957);Google Scholar and Greenberg, , op. cit. (note 18) chapters 1,2.Google Scholar

²³ See Young, James T., ‘Administrative Centralization and Decentralization in France’, The Annals, 2 (1898) 24–43Google Scholar; Yves Guyot's inside opinion as a municipal councillor, ‘The Municipal Organization of Paris’, Contemporary Review, 43 (1883) 439–56;Google Scholar Shaw, Albert, Municipal Government in Europe (New York: Century, 1895) chapter 2,Google Scholar interesting for what he missed; Fairlie, John A., ‘French Municipal History since 1789’, in his Municipal Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1901) pp. 103–13,Google Scholar Cilleuls, Alfred Des, op. cit. (note 7) vol. 2, 1–8Google Scholar for instance, though the theme is general.

²⁴ Young, James, op. cit., 38;Google Scholar Guyot, Yves, op. cit., 451–5;Google Scholar Journal Officiel (Senat), 1883, 11 fevrier, pp. 101–3.Google Scholar

²⁵ Journal Officiel (Chambre), ler semestre 1883, 309;Google Scholar Guyot, Yves, op cit., 439Google Scholar; Harris, Montagu, Problems of Local Government (London: P. S. King, 1911). pp. 92–6; and pp. 16–17, 24–5, 59–61.Google Scholar

²⁶ Guyot, Yves, op. cit., 39–40;Google Scholar de Luçay, Le Comte, op. cit. (note 22) pp. 82–4;Google Scholar also for sampling of discussions on Paris and the loi municipale and loi des communes see Journal Officiel (Chambre), ler semestre, pp. 242–310 for comments by René Goblet Hérédia; Ferrand's remark cited: ‘The basis of a free state is the free commune’; plus Goblet's ‘Je pense que la liberte communale est le principe de toutes libertés…. Dans une république d'où peut naitre I'idée du patriotisme, si ce n'est de l'esprit de cité:?’ (245). On the Manifeste de Nancy see, de Nancy, Comité, Un projet de décentralisation (Nancy: 1865),Google Scholar and Labbe, J., Le manifeste de Nancy et la democratic (Paris: E. Dentu, 1865);Google Scholar Greenberg, , op. cit. (note 18) 41–6.Google Scholar

²⁷ The Churchill view is from Harris, Percy A., London and Its Government (London: J. M. Dent, 1913) p. 183;Google Scholar quote on London's inorganic mass is from Harrison, Frederick, The Meaning of History (New York: Macmillan, 1894) p. 412;Google Scholar John Benn cited in Gardiner, Alfred C., Sir John Benn and the Progressive Movement (London: Ernest Benn, 1925) p. 84;Google Scholar critiques, official and otherwise, of London government, or lack of it, are legion; written mainly from an administrative point of view but the first to be based on official sources is Robson, William A., The Government and Misgovernment of London (2d ed., London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948) pp. 21–160Google Scholar, still a useful general summary of nineteenth-century problems; probably the last century's most complete and detailed complaints and remedies are in the writings of Firth, Joseph F. B., particularly his Municipal London (London: 1876);Google Scholar The Reform of London Government (London: Swan Sonnenschein, Lowery & Co., 1888);Google Scholar and numerous articles and pamphlets; also Sir Gomme, George Laurence, London in the Reign of Victoria, 1857–97 (New York: Herbert F. Stone, 1898)Google Scholar—Gomme was statistical officer of the early LCC and an impressive student of London archaeology and early English institutions; see his, The Making of London (Oxford: 1912);Google Scholar The Governance of London (London: 1907);Google Scholar and many articles; Sir Fraser, William, London Self-Governed (London: Francis Harvey, 1866);Google Scholar Torrens, William MacCullagh, The Government of London (London: 1884);Google Scholar and many articles; from the Fabian quadrant see Webb, Sidney, The London Programme (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1891),Google Scholar which can be fleshed out by the Progressive pamphlets in the ‘Jevons Collection’ of the British Library of Political and Economic Science. There are numerous pamphlets also by the London Municipal Reform League and by individuals such as Edwin Chadwick, Sir John Lubbock, George Goschen, Thomas McKinnon Wood, and J. T. Dexter among others. A fresh analysis of London reform and governmental development in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is being completed by my student and colleague, Rosa Lynn Pinkus; Professor Rude's volume in the History of London series is a good survey; the volumes by Francis Sheppard and Harold Dyos should appear soon.

²⁸ After the Royal Commission of 1837, similar commissions sat to inquire into London government in 1853–4 and 1894; Select Committees sat in 1861, 1866, 1867; among the bills proposed after passage of the Metropolitan Local Management Act of 1885 were those identi fied with Sir Grey, George (1856–1858),Google Scholar Sir Lewis, George Cornewall (1859)Google Scholar, Ayrton, A. S. (1860),Google Scholar Mill, John Stuart (1866),Google Scholar Buxton, C. (1869 and 1870),Google Scholar Elcho, Lord and Kay-Shuttleworth, (1875)Google Scholar, Firth, J. F. B. (1880),Google Scholar Sir Harcourt, William (1884),Google Scholar and Ritchie, Charles (1888)Google Scholar among others.

²⁹ Sir Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of Tomorrow (London: 1902) p. 11;Google Scholar Howard was the Parliamentary stenographer who labored to banish the ‘chaos’ of great cities by planning commensurable small towns replete with the necessities of life—the ‘garden city’ concept. The quote on London as a ‘disease’ is from Harrison's, op. cit. (note 27) 241,Google Scholar paraphrasing his comment cited above.

³⁰ The best administrative study of the City and its properties is Johnson's, David J. Southwark and the City (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969);Google Scholar The City of London's transition from its Radical tradition of the eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries is under study by my colleague Professor Norman Baker.

³¹ Grey quoted in Harris, , op. cit. (note 27) 54Google Scholar; Benn quoted from Gardiner, , op. cit. (note 27) 146Google Scholar; for other samplings of hostilities toward the City see Hickson, W. E., ‘Corporate and Municipal Reform of London’, Westminster Review, 39 (1843) 497 ff;Google Scholar the bitter attack by Gilbert, William, The City: An Inquiry into the Corporation: Its Livery Companies and the Administration of their Charities and Endowments (London: Daldy, Isbister, 1877);Google Scholar also see discussions in Hansard (Commons), 324 (1888), 04 12, 1109–69;Google Scholar April 13, 1210–86; 325 (1888), April 20, 38–126; 327 (1888), June 15, 152–320; June 18, 463–555; June 19, 591–660; June 22, 996–1058; and debates of July 3–July 19, 1888 on Local Government Bill; also British Sessional Papers, House of Commons, 1854. Reports… Report of the Royal Commission on the Corporation of the City of London, vol. 26Google Scholar; and British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, 1894 Reports. …Report of the Royal Commission appointed to Consider the Proper Conditions under which the Amalgamation of the City and County of London can be Effected (C-7493), vol. 17, 18.Google Scholar

³² Quotes from Firth, , op. cit. (note 27) 15–18Google Scholar; for the interesting influence of Beal on many other London reformers, Firth included, see Beal's correspondence: for instance, Firth to JB, F/B2/9/28; Beal's correspondence was with Gladstone, Bright, Chadwick, John Stuart Mill, Hobhouse, Acton, Farrar, and Morley in Beal Collection; also see H.A.P., The Truth About the London Government Bill (London: E. J. Stoneham, 1884);Google Scholar and Royal Commission Reports cited in note 31.

³³ Quote from Gardiner, , op. cit. (note 27) 85–6;Google Scholar for summation of Beal-Firth reform position and Beal's changing views see Towler, W. G., The Dual System of London Government (Westminster: London Municipal Society, Vacher & Sons, 1912), pp. 8, 10Google Scholar; Beat's testimony before Select Committee, British Sessional Papers, House of Commons. 1861. Report (First–Third) from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into Local Taxation and Government of the Metropolis and the Local Administration of Justice, vol. 8, Session 6 02-6 August, 1861, 1792, 1894, 2152,Google Scholar for instance. The pamphlets of the London Municipal Reform League are in the British Library of Political and Economic Science as are a number of the Moderate's London Municipal Society pamphlets.

³⁴ Fortesque's remark here quoted from ‘The Government of London Act of 1888’, Nine teenth Century, 24 (1888) 481Google Scholar; also see ‘The Government of London’, Westminster Review, 49(n.s. 1876) 121.Google Scholar

³⁵ Quote from Sir Harcourt, William Speech at Leeds, April 17, 1884, The Times, April 18, 1884.Google Scholar

³⁶ Salisbury's remarks became notorious. Members of his own party tried to mitigate them in Parliamentary debates; see Gardiner, , op. cit. (note 27) 212Google Scholar; Robson, , op. cit. (note 27) 84–92Google Scholar; Gibbon, G. and Bell, R. W., History of the London County Council 1889–1939 (London: 1939) chapter 1,2;Google Scholar quote on London as a political Frankenstein is in Towler, , op. cit. (note 33) 6–7.Google Scholar

³⁷ Quote on the landlords from William Woodward, ‘Land and House Property in London: Their Present Position and Modern Attempts to Disturb It’, A Paper read at a Meeting of The Society of Architects, St. James' Hall, March 10, 1891, p. 3. Also see London County Council. Minutes of Proceedings of the Local Government and Taxation Committee, vol. 3, 06 29, 1894–April 9, 1897;Google Scholar and vol. 4, May 7, 1897–March 17, 1899, for discussions and actions on changing land taxes, landlordism; Minutes are in the Records Room, Greater London Council, London. For background on landlordism, landholding see Thompson, F. M. L. English LandedJSociety in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963);Google Scholar and Spring, David, The English Landed Estate in the Nineteenth Century: Its Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963);Google Scholar also Royal Commission on Housing of the Working Classes, cited note 14; Banfield, Frank, The Great Landlords of London (London: S. Blackett, 1890);Google Scholar and for what a great landlord could mean to improvements in London, London County Council. Books of Reference, Session 1898, 1899, citing Bedford Estates; and LCC Opening of Kingsway and Aldwych, 10 18 1905 (London: LCC, 1905) pp. 4–8Google Scholar showing properties which had to be bought to bring these great improvements into being; and Professor splendid, John Kellett's The Impact of Railways on Victorian Cities (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969) chapter 9.Google Scholar

³⁸ Woodward, , op. cit. (note 37) 2–3, 8–15Google Scholar; for pertinent materials on taxation see Gomme, G. L., ‘Local Taxation in London’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 61 (1898) 442–52;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hobhouse, Arthur, ‘Local Taxation of Rents in London’, Contemporary Review, 54 (1888) 140–5;Google Scholar Costelloe, B. F. C., ‘Taxation in London: The Bitter Cry of the Taxed’, Contemporary Review, 65 (1894) 293–7;Google Scholar Blunden, G. H, ‘The Incidence of Local Rates’, Economic Review, 1 (1891) 486–96;Google Scholar Cliffe-Leslie, T. E., ‘The Incidence of Imperial and Local Taxation’, Fortnightly Review, 85 (1874) 248–65;Google Scholar Whitmore, C. A., ‘Demands for Changes in Taxation in London’, National Review 21 (1893) 375–83;Google Scholar for samplings of books and documents see, Goschen, George, Reports and Speeches on Local Taxation (London: Macmillan, 1872), especially pp. 151–74;Google Scholar Cannan, Edward, The History of Local Rates in England: In Relation to the Proper Distribution of the Burden of Taxation (2nd ed., London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1912);Google Scholar Blunden, G. H., Local Taxation and Finance (2nd ed., London: Sonnen-schein, 1893) pp. 1–12, 32–9, 96–9;Google Scholar London County Council. Report on the Incidence of Taxation in London, L. C. C. Doc. 17, 1891; and Royal Commission Reports of 1870 and 1899; Select Committees 1861, 1867.

³⁹ British Sessional Papers. House of Commons. 1867 Report from the Select Committee on the East London Water Bills &c … with Proceedings of the Committee Minutes of Evidence. Session 5 February–21 August 1867, vol. 9; London County Council. The Position of the London Water Companies Considered from a Parliamentary and a Legal Point of View. Report to the London County Council, H. L. Cripps. Doc. 51, 1892; British Sessional Papers. House of Commons. 1861. First Report from the Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation. … Minutes of Evidence, vol. 8. Session 6 February-6 August 1861, 10–11, 16–18; British Sessional Papers. House of Commons, 1867. Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, & London City Improvement Rates Bill, 15 March 1867, vol. 12… Proceedings of the Committee, vi–vii, 26–8, 134; British Sessional Papers. House of Commons. 1867. Special Report from the Select Committee on the Metropolis Gas Bill &c. Session 5 February–21 August 1867, 61–5 (Beal's quotes are on pp. 65, 83). The papers of the London Water Companies are in bound volumes in the Records Room, Greater London Council, London.

⁴⁰ Quote is from Strong, , op. cit. (note 5) 84–5;Google Scholar from the abundance of nativist comment spawned by the Greens, Nordhoffs, Parkmans, Partons, Stickneys, Stowes, Storeys, Whites, Winchells, and Wingates see, Coxe's, Bishop A. Cleveland ‘Government by Aliens’, The Forum, 7 (1889) 589, 600–1;Google Scholar ‘The Government of the City of New York’, North American Review, 103 (1866) 413–60;Google Scholar Godkin, E. L., ‘Criminal Polities’, in his Problems of Modern Democracy (2d ed., New York: Scribner's, 1897) pp. 128–34;Google Scholar Breen, Matthew, Thirty Years of New York Politics (New York: John Polhemus, 1899) pp. 249–78;Google Scholar Bocock, John, ‘The Irish Conquest of Our Cities’, The Forum, 17 (1894) 186–95;Google Scholar Brooks, Sydney, ‘Tammany Again’, Fortnightly Review, 80 (12 1903) 921, 924–5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Some of the most accurate and succinct summaries of New York's apportionment situation are in legal decisions; for instance: Matter of O’Brien, Sherrill v., 188 New York Reports 1907, 185Google Scholar; Matter of Dowling, , 219 New York Reports 1916, 44;Google Scholar Csontos, Mildred, ‘History of Legislative Apportionment in New York State, 1777–1940, with Discussion of Obstacles to Apportionment’, Legislative reference section, New York State Library (Albany: 01 1941);Google Scholar Silverman, Morris, ‘The Struggle for Reapportionment in New York State’, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Yeshiva University, New York, 1949);Google Scholar Yearley, , op. cit. (note 8) chapters 4, 5.Google Scholar

⁴² Quote by leader of Chamber of Commerce from Sterne, Simon, ‘Crude Methods of Legislation’, North American Review, 137 (1883), 159Google Scholar; quote on NYC as field of plunder from Commercial and Financial Chronicle, 64 (04 3, 1897) 645–7;Google Scholar also see 30 (1880) 445–6; also 286–8, 309–10; 31 (1881) 494–5; 64 (1897) 488–90; Baldwin, Henry DeForest, ‘The City's Purse’, Municipal Affairs 1 (1897) 329–62;Google Scholar Baldwin, noted: ‘The most efficient public agency in emptying the city's purse is the Legislature’ (p. 345);Google Scholar quote on Piatt's government is from The Nation, 60 (01 24, 1895) 66.Google Scholar

⁴³ On New York political complexities see, Benson, Lee, Merchants, Farmers, and Railroads: Railroad Legislation and New York Politics, 1850–1887 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1955);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Callow, Alexander, Jr., The Tweed Ring (New York: Oxford, 1966);Google Scholar and the more interpretative effort by Mandelbaum, Seymour, Boss Tweed's New York (New York: John Wiley, 1965).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Quote is from ‘The Government of the City of New York’, North American Review, 103 (1866) 445;Google Scholar these committees have been cited in note 15. From the 1870s to 1890s Andrew Green served variously as President of the Board of Education, Comptroller, Comptroller of Parks, and Chairman of the Greater New York Commission; he was called the ‘Father of Consolidation’; see his ‘Three Years Struggle with Municipal Misrule’, Report of Andrew H. Green in Response to Certain Resolutions of the Board of Aldermen, 02 18, 1875, pp. 3–31;Google Scholar lvins served as City Chamberlain and Chief Counsel for the Fassett Committee (1891); see his Machine Politics and Money in Elections in New York City (New York: Harpers, 1887)Google Scholar as well as his articles on municipal finance; Sherman wrote Inside the Machine: Two Years in the Board of Aldermen, 1898–99: A Study of the Legislative Features of the City Government of New York City Under the Greater New York Charter (New York: Cooke & Fry, 1901);Google Scholar also see City Reform Clubs Minute Books, 1882–93 and various Reports of the Citizens’ Association on corruption, housing, taxes, education, and reform in NYC particularly during the 1860s, in New York Public Library.

⁴⁵ Fassett's observation is in his ‘Why Cities are Badly Governed’, North American Review, 150 (06 1890) 631–7;Google Scholar the reference here is to Ostrogorski's famous Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, edited and abridged by Seymour Lipset (2 vols., New York: Anchor, 1964);Google Scholar also see Sterne, Simon, ‘Why Tammany Won’, Municipal Affairs, 2 (1898) 148–50.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Adams, Henry Carter, Public Debts: An Essay in the Science of Finance (New York: Appleton, 1892) p. 23;Google Scholar quotation on tax reform from Plehn, Carl, Introduction to Public Finance (New York: Macmillan, 1896) p. vii.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Keller, Albert G. and Davie, Maurice, The Essays of William Graham Sumner (2 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934) 2, 351–2;Google Scholar quote from Wells', ‘Principles of Taxation’, Popular Science Monthly, 48 (11 1895) 13.Google Scholar In conjunction with Cadoux, Weber, and Des Cilteuls on Paris, the Royal and Select Committee reports on fiscal problems in London, see Wells', Report of the Commissioners appointed to Revise the Laws for the Assessment and Collection of Taxes in the State of New York, 1871 (Albany: 1871);Google Scholar a second report followed in 1872.

⁴⁸ For quote on London being deprived of general powers, see Whitmore, C. A., ‘Con servatives and the London County Council’, National Review, 21 (1893) 178Google Scholar; quote on London Government Act is from Farrar, T. H., Finance of the London County Council (London: 1890) pp. 10–11Google Scholar, in the bound pamphlet collection in the Members' Library, Greater London Council; final quote is from Farrar, p. 12.

⁴⁹ Cannan quoted from op. cit. (note 38) 145–6;Google Scholar some of the Commissions and reports on rates have been cited in notes 13, 33, 39.

⁵⁰ Quoted in Shaw, Albert, ‘Municipal Problems of New York and London’, Review of Reviews, 5 (04 1892) 295Google Scholar; London Municipal Society, The Government of London: Facts and Arguments (Westminster: Edward Arnold, 1895) pp. 26–37, 54–5,Google Scholar for hostility to expenses of LCC; see, too, ‘Municipal Administration of London’, Edinburgh Review, 175 (04 1892), 500–17;Google Scholar Wood, T. McKinnon, ‘Attack on the Council’, Contemporary Review, 73 (1898) 202–7.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cilleuls, Des, op. cit. (note 7) vol. 2, 223.Google Scholar

⁵² On Paris' general fiscal situation see Veber, Adrian, ‘Le Budget de Paris’, La Revue Socialiste, 31 (04 1900) 432–49;Google Scholar and Cadoux's, Gaston Les Finances de la Ville de Paris (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1900),Google Scholar very detailed and sympathetic to the Municipal Council. Specifically on the octroi see Veber, Adrian, ‘La Suppression des Octrois’, La Revue Socialiste, 28 (Aout 1898) 156–77;Google Scholar 28 (Septembre 1898) 287–317; 28 (Octobre 1898) 446–70; 28 (Novembre 1898) 544–73; these arguments are against the octroi at Paris; Maurice Block presents the argument for retaining it in his L'octroi: Pourquoi il est conservé (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1878);Google Scholar Guyot, , op. cit. (note 23) 442–3.Google Scholar For official debates on octrois see Journal Officiel (Chambre), ler semestre 1889, 333–448, 450–556.Google Scholar

⁵³ For quotes see Guyot, , op. cit. (note 23) 447Google Scholar; ‘How Paris is Governed’, The Nation, 28 (02 27, 1879) 147Google Scholar; also see Guyot's, ‘La Suppression des Octrois et le Conseil Municipal de Paris’, (pamphlet: 1880); Paris.Google Scholar Conseil Municipal, Procès Verbaux, 1876 (December 20, 1876) pp. 1308–9;Google Scholar for context I have relied on Williams, The French Revolution of1870–71 and Joughin, Jean, The Paris Commune in French Politics, 1871–1880 (2 vols, in 1, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The most extensive discussions are in Cadoux, Des Cilleuls, Block, and Veber; a convenient and, within the limits of his sympathies, accurate account of Council powers in fiscal matters is Guyot. Guyot was a Councillor, then served in the Chambre; he was founder of ‘Les Droits de l'homme’; ardently opposed to centralization, police controls etc. See his ‘The Municipal Organization of Paris’ (citation in note 23) 442–6.

⁵⁵ The quote is from Guyot, , op. cit. in note 23, 446Google Scholar; for a long diatribe against the Prefect of Police see Guyot's, La Police (Paris: G. Charpentier et Cie, 1884).Google Scholar Des Cilleuls has a good administrative discussion in op. cit. (note 7) vol. 2, 202–7;Google Scholar also 163–7, 118–23, 276–90, 367–75. For the types of controversies over the police and Paris see details of the Andrieux affair in L'Anneé Politique, 1881, pp. 178–80;Google Scholar in English see Spitzer, Alan, ‘The Bureaucrat as Proconsul: The Restoration Prefect and Police Generale’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7 (1965) 371 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, Howard C., ‘Theory and Practice of Political Police During the Second Empire in France’, Journal of Modern History, 30 (1958) 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ From Guyot, , op. cit. in note 23, 448Google Scholar; Sir Dilke, Charles, ‘On the Municipal Government of Paris’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39 (1876) 299–310.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Quotes from Shaw's, ‘Municipal Problems of New York and London’, Review of Reviews, 5 (1892) 286.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Grace quoted in Clow, Frederick R., A Comparative Study of City Finance in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1901) p. 13;Google Scholar also see The Nation, January 13, 1881, p. 23;Google Scholar Bernheim, A. C., ‘The Relations of the City and the State of New York’, Political Science Quarterly, 9 (09 1894) 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Testimony quoted from New York State. Senate. Testimony Taken before the Senate Committee on Cities Pursuant to the Resolution adopted January 20, 1890, vol. 3, 2252–3,Google Scholar and see 2261, 2378; see, too, Durand, Dana, The Finances of New York City, chapters 4–6Google Scholar; and The Commercial and Financial Chronicle, 48 (1870), 275–6;Google Scholar 49 (1871), 775–6; 30 (1880) 309–10, 367–8; 31 (1881) 494–5; 64 (1894) 488–90; Yearley, , op. cit. (note 8) chapter 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Buck, A. E., ‘The Development of the Budget Idea in the United States’. The Annals, 113 (1924) vii, 16, 22, 35Google Scholar; Agger, Eugene, The Budget in the American Commonwealth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1907);Google Scholar Lowie, Seldon G., The Budget (Madison: Demuret Press, 1912);Google Scholar Bastable, C. F., ‘The New Budget and the Principles of Financial Policy’, Economic Journal, 9 (1899) 204–11;CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Paris' budget see previous citations of Cadoux (note 52), Des Cilleuls (note 7), and Veber (note 52).

⁶¹ Quote from McLaughlin's, ‘The Significance of Political Parties’, Atlantic, 101 (1908) 145–6;Google Scholar for broader discussions of centralizing and decentralizing influences at work in London as well as English local government see Probyn, J. W. (ed.), Essays on Local Government and Taxation (London and New York: Cassell, 1875);Google Scholar Brodrick, George C., ‘Local Government in England’, pp. 27–95 especially.Google Scholar

⁶² Buck, , op. cit. (note 60) vii.Google Scholar

⁶³ Dawson, Edgar, ‘The Invisible Government and Administrative Efficiency’, The Annals, 64 (03 1916) 18.Google Scholar